KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI
This is an appeal preferred u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the final order of the judgement dated 29/09/2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, in CC/101/2021.
Brief facts of the Appellant’s case, is that the Respondent No.1 was the wife of the freedom fighter and she was entitled to three types of family pension viz. Swatantrata Sainik Samman Family Pension (Central Govt. pension), State Government Family Pension and Swatantrata Sainik Samman Monthly Allowance (State Govt. pension), receivable through the Appellant/Bank since 16/02/2012 in her S/B A/c. No. 21013024737, for the Central Government pension and in S/B A/c. No.21013025436, for her State Govt. pension, for which she became a consumer of the Appellant/Bank. The Respondent No.1/Complainant, used to regularly submit her Life Certificate to the Appellant/Bank and in the year 2015 also she had submitted her 3 Life Certificates in the above Pension A/c., but the Appellant/Bank had stopped the Freedom Fighter Widow Family Pension (Central Government), even though she kept on receiving the State Govt. pension. The negligence on the part of the Appellant/Bank, had resulted in her Central Govt. Pension being stopped from November, 2015. The Respondent No.1/Complainant, had gone for the treatment of her eye from July, 2016 to last week of December, 2016 and on returning had submitted 3 Life Certificates, to the Appellant/Bank on 10/02/2017. In spite of the existence of guidelines in Clause 24, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, F.F.R. Division the Appellant/Bank did not bother to visit and enquire when the Life Certificate, had not been submitted, after stopping the pension causing mental pain and agony. After much effort the Respondent/Complainant, was able to regularize her Central Govt. pension on and from 10/02/2017, but the Respondent No.1/Complainant, was still unable to ger her pension, from the Respondent No.2, for the period from Nov. 2015 to Jan. 2017, suffering a loss of Rs.3,54,738/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty-four thousand seven hundred thirty-eight) only. On 05/07/2019, she issued a Legal Demand Notice, but till date the Appellant/Bank failed to respond. Finding no alternative, she filed the instant case before the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur.
The Appellant/Bank in order to contest the claim, filed a written version, wherein the Respondent No.1’s case was denied on the ground that on non-submission of the Life Certificate, the officials of the Appellant/Bank, had visited the house of the Respondent No.1, but the same had been found to be closed, which had been corroborated by the Respondent No.1 in her petition. Thereafter, a new PPO had been issued on and from 10/02/2017, but there had been no directions with regard to the payment of the arrear pension.
The Respondent No.2 had also filed a written version wherein it was mentioned that a Life Certificate was necessary and in the absence of the same the bank official should visit the residence of the Pensioner to know the actual cause and in the case of Pensioner being above 80 years Life Certificate should be collected before 31st May and 30th Nov. in a year. It was further mentioned that the Appellant/Bank had been negligent in not forwarding the Life Certificate of the Respondent No.1/Complainant.
After going through the materials on record, the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur passed the impugned order directing the Appellant/Bank to pay Rs. 3,54,738/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty-four thousand seven hundred thirty-eight) only, along with interest from 12/09/2019 till the date of realization along with Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, as litigation cost within 45 days from passing of the impugned order.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order the Appellant/Bank preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.
Decisions with Reasons
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Bank at the time of final hearing, had submitted that the failure of the Respondent No.1 to submit the Life Certificate, had resulted in the stopping of the Central Govt. pension, for which reason the Appellant/Bank should not be held liable and therefore prays for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.1/Complainant on the other hand had submitted that the Respondent No.1/Complainant had submitted 3 Life Certificates and the Appellant/Bank had negligently failed to forward the same to the Appropriate Authorities, resulting in the denial of the Central Govt. pension to the Respondent No.1/Complainant. That apart the follow-up action allegedly taken by the Appellant/Bank also had not been supported by evidence. Under the circumstance, the appeal should be dismissed.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.2, had merely submitted the procedure and law, governing the issuance of the Central Govt. pension.
It is undisputed position, that the Respondent No.1/Complainant, is the pensioner of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Family Pension (Central Govt. pension) and who is still alive. Therefore, when she had stated, that she had submitted 3 Life Certificates for the continuance of her pension, it would be safe to presume that she had done so, as it would be unnatural to presume that she would deprive herself financially, for no rhyme or reason. On the other hand, the Appellant/Bank could have contradicted the same by proving the follow-up course of action, taken in case of non-deliverance of the Life Certificate. But, apparently the Appellant/Bank had failed to do so, as it has only sought corroboration from the statement made by the Respondent No.1/Complainant. What was required was that the Appellant/Bank, ought to have supported their contention, in the form of concrete and cogent evidence. But this statement of follow-up course of action appears to be an afterthought, can be gauged from the fact that the Respondent No.1/Complainant had left in July, 2016 and it took the Appellant/Bank nearly 9 months after the non-submission of her Life Certificates, to enquire about her whereabouts, even if it is accepted, that they did so immediately, after the Respondent No.1/Complainant had left for her eye treatment. Under the circumstance, the Appellant/Bank’s failure to prove the contradiction, results in the failure of this appeal.
It is therefore,
ORDERED
That the instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without cost.
The impugned order is hereby upheld. The Appellant/Bank is directed to comply with the directions passed in the impugned within 45 days, from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of the order be handed over the parties, free of cost.
Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, for necessary information.
Statutory fees, deposited be returned from whom received.
Jt. Registrar, Siliguri Circuit Bench of WBSCDRC, to do the needful.
