DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 372

 Instituted on:   08.03.2021

                                                                         Decided on:      20.01.2023

Balvir Singh aged 63 years S/o Krishan Singh R/o Ward No.2, VPO Dodra Tehsil Bhudlada, District Mansa.         

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     State Bank of India (formerly SBOP), Branch Sunam, District Sangrur, through its Branch Manager.148028.

2.     State Bank of India, Zonal Office Sector-5, Panchkula, through its Zonal Manager-134114.

 ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant  : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.              

For the Op.no.1        : Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, Adv.

For the Op.no.2        : Exparte.

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL : PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH               : MEMBER

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.       The brief facts of the case are that the present complaint is filed by complainant and he pleaded that the pension of the complainant alongwith other retiral dues are being paid by the department through the Op.no.1 in the Saving Bank Account Number 55027983923 of the complainant maintained in SBI Branch, Sunam. The A.G. Punjab has sanctioned the payment of Rs.26,838/- on account of revised death cum Retirement Gratuity in favour of complainant vide letter no. PEN-09/2181761778/2018-19/PE/18/15/80159926 dated 18.07.2018 through treasury, Sangrur. The treasury, Sangrur has forwarded the sanction with payment order to SBI Branch, Sangrur and the same was further forwarded by SBI Branch, Sangrur to Op.no.1 vide registered post on 02.08.2018. It was duty of Op.no.1 to forward the above said sanction to Op.no.2 and it was the duty of Op.no.2 to deposit the amount in question in the account of the complainant through Op.no.1 after receiving the sanction letter from Op.no.1. Complainant visited Op.no.1 number of times but OP number 1 did not provide any dispatch number to the complainant. Complainant moved a written request on 21.10.2020 to deposit the amount of Rs. 26838/- but the Ops never gave reply nor deposited the amount. Thus, complainant prayed that the Ops be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 26838/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from 02.08.2018 till realization of entire amount and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and pay Rs. 15000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon notice Op.no.2 did not appear and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 07.09.2021.  Op.no.1 has appeared and filed reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is bad on account of non joinder of necessary party. Treasury Office, Sangrur and SBI Branch, Sangrur are necessary parties, but they have not been impleaded as parties in the complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is having an account number 55027983923 with the Op.no.1. It is further submitted that the Op.no.1 had not received any alleged sanction with   payment   order   of  Rs.26838/- from SBI, Sangrur. It is submitted that the complainant has submitted an application dated 21.10.2020 to the Op.no.1 for crediting the amount of Rs. 26838/- of sanction order sent by SBI, Sangrur to Op.no.1. By making efforts and issuing a letters to SBI Branch, Sangrur the Op.no.1 has been able to receive the sanction order on 06.10.2021 and the same was credited in the account of complainant and prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence self attested affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op.no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.Op.1/1 and Ex.Op.1/2 to Op.1/5 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsels are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same for avoiding the repetition. Now come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer? Further it is admitted fact that the complainant has an account number 55027983923 with the Op.no.1. Ex.C-2 is a copy of account passbook of complainant. Ex.C-4 and Ex.Op.1/3 are the similar documents. It depicts a revised certificate and report dated 18.07.2018 and mentioned at column number 11 regarding the balance amount of the death cum Retirement Gratuity of Rs.26838/-. Ex.C-5 is copy of representation dated 21.10.2020 to the Manager, SBI, Sunam with regard to deposit the revised Gratuity amount. While on the other hand as per Ex. Op.1/2 is the document with regard to revalidation of duplicate certificate and report cum Gratuity payment order issued by Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Office of the Accountant General(A&E), Punjab on 27.09.2021 to the District Treasury Officer, Sangrur. As per reply on merits OP number 1 has pleaded that the Op.no.1 received the sanction order on 06.10.2021 and the amount was credited in the account of complainant on 1.12.2021, which is evident from the copy of statement of account as well as this fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant in his statement dated 7.11.2022 that the amount of Rs.26,838/- has been credited in his account on 1.12.2021 (wrongly stated as 1.11.2021).

5.             This Commission observed that the amount of Rs.26,838/- was credited in account of the complainant by OP number 1 on 01.12.2021 as the letter dated 27.09.2021 issued by Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Office of the Accountant General(A&E), Punjab was forwarded to the State Bank of India Branch Sunam vide endorsement dated 6.10.2021 In the circumstances of the case we find nothing wrong on the part of OP number 1 in discharging its duties. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not arrayed Indian Audit and Accounts Department, office of the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab as a party, who had to make the payment to the complainant. There is no explanation from the complainant on this point.   

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find no case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

7.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

8.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance/

                                Announced.                                              

                                January 20, 2023.

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President

   BBS/-