The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming Principal amount of Rs. 3,54,738/- with 9% interest per annum from on and from the month of November, 2015 + Compensation Rs.1,00,000/- + Litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.
The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant is a wife of Free Fighter Late Pulin Behari Das Gupta and she used to get three types of family pension namely- (i) Swatantra Sainik Samman Family Pension (Central Govt. Pension), (ii) State Government Family Pension and (iii) Swatantra Sainik Samman Monthly Allowance ( State Govt. Pension) from the Opposite Party no.1 since 16.02.2012. As such the Complainant is the Consumer of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant is receiving Free Fighter widow family pension(Central) in her S/B account no. 21013024737 and also receiving State Government family pension and State Freedom Fighter Pension in her saving Bank account no.2103025436 of Allahabad Bank (at present Indian Bank), Balurghat Branch, Dakshin Dinajpur i.e. Opposite Party No.1. On regular basis the Complainant had submitted her life Certificates to the Opposite Party No.1 against her above noted pension accounts. In the year 2015 the Complainant has also submitted her three life certificates against her above noted pension accounts to the Opposite Party No.1. But the Opposite Party No.1surprisingly has stopped the pension of Free Fighter widow family pension on and from November, 2015 due to non submission of life certificates of the Complainant. It cannot be possible that the Complainant had submitted two life certificates for her three pension accounts on the same branch, on same date and same course of business. Due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, the life certificate of the Complainant was not attached with SSS Family Pension account of the Complainant(Central Govt. Pension Account) and for which said pension was stopped from November,2015. The Complainant went outside of Balurghat on and from the month of July, 2016 to last week of December, 2016. For her treatment of eye and after returning from Kolkata, the Complainant submitted her three life certificates before the Opposite Party No.1 on 10.02.2017 and came to know about the above deficiency in service of the Opposite Party No.1. As per clause 2.4 of guideline of Ministry of Home Affairs FFR Division, in the case of non-submission of life certificate It is expected from the Banks that apart from stopping the pension, they should immediately visit the pensioner to find out why he/she did not submit the life certificate. The Opposite Party no.1 has not followed the above guide line before stopping the pension of the Complainant and for such act of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainants facing irreparable financial loss, mental pain and agony and the Opposite Party No.1 is completely liable for the said loss and agony. After a long processing, the Complainant has been able to get fresh sanction/ resumption of Freedom Fighter widow family pension from the Central Government and the said pension again started on and from 10.02.2017. As the Opposite Party no.1 did not submit the life certificate of the Complainant for the year 2015-2016, the Opposite Party No.2 was compelled to stop the pension of the Complainant. Due to the negligence of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant did not get her pension for the period from November, 2015 to January, 2017. On 05.07.2019, the Complainant sent an advocate`s letter to the Opposite Party No.1 but despite of receiving the said notice, the Opposite Party No.1 has not credit the said amount in the account of the Complainant. Having no alternative, the Complainant filed the instant case for relief as prayed for in the plaint.
Notice was duly served upon the opposite Party and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party appeared before this commission and filed his written version. Due to adding party in this case, a notice was sent to the Opposite Party No.2 and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party No.2 also filed his written version.
By filing written version, the Opposite Party No.1 has denied the material allegation as mentioned in the complaint. The Complainant has filed the instant case by suppressing the real facts. The Opposite Party No.1 is always agree regarding the payment of pension amount after maintaining the all formalities, procedure and rules and regulations of the pension. He further stated that Swantantra Sainik Samman Family Pension (Central Govt. Pension) is totally controlled by Government of India , Home Affairs North Block, New Delhi and this Bank is the media/ authorized agent regarding payment of pension and the authority of the Branch has no authority to decide/ take any steps regarding this matter. The Complainant submitted the life certificate of the said State Govt. Pension but the life certificate not submitted for the Central Govt. Pension and one staff of the Opposite Party No.1 was physically attended to the house of the Complainant regarding information for non-submission od life certificate of Central Govt. Pension but the door of the house was closed and tried for information but failed and the said staff informed the matter to the authority of the Opposite Party No.1 and as per document, the Complainant was outside regarding her treatment which has been submitted by the Complainant herself. After stopping the central govt. pension, the Complainant communicated the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 advised her to communicate with the Opposite Party No.2 and accordingly, a new PPO has been issued after forgo the all previous and the pension was started from 10.02.2017 But the Opposite Party No.2 has given no instruction to the Opposite Party No.1 regarding payment of arrear pension. The Opposite Party No.1 informed the matter of non-submission of life certificate to the son of the Complainant who was Auditor of the Opposite Party No.1. the prayer of the complaint is false and baseless so, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed.
By filing written version, the Opposite Party No.2 has stated that each Bank should obtain a life certificate once a year in the month of November from the concerned Freedom Fighter or the dependant as the case may be. For the purpose of obtaining Life Certificate, it is clarified that the pensioner must come face to face with the banker. Wherever it is found that the pensioner is too old to come to the Bank then the Bank Officer must visit his/her place of residence before obtaining the life certificate. In case where the pensioner is above the age of 80 the Life Certificate should be taken by the Bank twice a year , once in May( before 31st May) and once in November( before 30th November). If a pensioner does not submit his life certificate by 30th November, the Bank should immediately stop the pension. If the pensioner submit the life certificate few months after the November deadline but before next 31st October, then the Bank may resume the pension and pay arrears. If a pensioner does not submit his life certificate by 30th November and thereafter does not submit it even till next 31st October then the person is deemed to have been cancelled and in such cases, the Bank should return the disburser`s portion of PPO to the CPAO. After the said deemed cancellation if the pensioner reappear either at the Bank or at the Ministry, the pension shall only be resumed after a fresh sanction order is issued by the Ministry followed by an issuance of fresh PPO. In such case, no arrears shall be paid. The Opposite Party No.2 further has stated that in case where the pensioner does not submit the life certificate, the bank stop the pension and let the matter rest at that. This is not enough, it is expected from the banks that, apart from stopping the pension, they should immediately visit the pensioner to find out why he/ she did not submit the life certificate. This will help bank timely update its data (in case the pensioner has expired) and recover any excess payments. In the instant case, it is evident that the concerned bank has not forwarded the life certificate to the Opposite Party No.2 in due time and if the life certificate would have been submitted and forwarded within the due time the SSS family pension could not been stopped the central government pension account of the Complainant. It is the gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and if any compensation is to be awarded by hour Honour it is to be awarded against the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is no way liable to pay any short of compensation to the Complainant as there is no short of negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. Hence, the instant case is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.2.
To prove his case, the complainant has filed photo copies of some documents mentioned below
- Aaadhaar Card of the Complainant
- Death certificate of Pulin Behari Das Gupta
- Letter dated 16.02.2017 of Complainant
- Treatment paper of Complainant
- Letter of Complainant dated 13.06.2017
- Pension payment order dated 17.10.2018
- Letter dated 14.11.2018 from P & A Officer Central Pension Account Office
- Letter of Complainant dated 31.01.2019 addressed to Hon`ble Home Minister of India along with postal receipts
- Letter dated 17.01.2019 regarding New additions of PPO of Complainant
- Demand notice dated 05.07.2019 issued by advocate Santanu Dey along with postal receipt and delivery report.
On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 have failed to file any document in support of their defense
In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite
Parties?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have heard argument by Ld. Advocates for the all sides at length. We have also gone through the evidence on affidavit and written argument filed by both the parties. We also perused the documents produced by the Complainant before this Commission.
At the time of argument Ld advocate for the Complainant narrated the fact of the case as mentioned in the plaint. He further submitted that it cannot be possible that the Complainant had submitted two Life Certificates for her three pension accounts on same branch, on same date and same course of business. Due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, the Life Certificate of the Complainant was not attached with SSS Family Pension account of the Complainant (Central Govt. Pension Account) and for which said pension was stopped from November, 2015. It is fully false that any staff of the Opposite Party No.1 had visited the house of the Complainant at the relevant point of time. Due to the negligence of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant had faced a loss of 03,54,738/-. The Opposite Party No.1 has not rendered proper service to the Complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 has denied the material allegation as mentioned in the plaint and he narrated his defense case as mentioned in the written version. Ld. Advocate has further submitted that the Complainant submitted her two life certificates for State Govt. Pensions but did not submit her life certificate in respect of the Central Govt. Pension. One staff of the Opposite Party No.1 was sent to the house of the Complainant but the house of the Complainant was closed and the said staff informed the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant has gone outside for her treatment. He further added that the son of the Complainant was Auditor of the Opposite Party No.1 and the matter of non-submission of the Life Certificate was informed to him.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party so, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 also narrated his defense case as mentioned in the written version. Ld. Advocate further submitted that total liability of negligence is of Opposite Party No.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed against the Opposite Party No.2.
Now, let us discuss all the points one by one.
Point No. 1
On perusal of materials on record, it appears that the Complainant has three pension account with the Opposite Party No.1/ Bank. This fact has also been admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 so, it can be said that the Opposite Party No.1 is service provider to the Complainant and Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 according to section (2)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.
It appears from the record that the Complainant is a wife of Late Pulin Behari Das who was a Freedom Fighter and the Complainant gets three family pensions namely – (i) Swantantrata Sainik Samman Family Pension(Central Govt. Pension), (ii) State Govt. Family Pension and (iii) Swatantrata Sainik Samman Monthly Allowance (State Govt. Pension) from the Bank/ Opposite Party No.1 since 16.02.2012.
It is the allegation of the Complainant that in the year 2015, she submitted her three life certificates against her above noted pension accounts to the Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Party No.1 stopped the pension of Freedom Fighter widow family pension (Central Govt. Pension) from November, 2015 due to non-submission of life certificate of the Complainant but the other two State Government Pensions are still continuing as usual due to submission of life certificates of the Complainant. The Complainant has further alleged that it cannot be possible that the Complainant had submitted two life certificates for her three pension accounts in the same branch, on same date and same course of business. Due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, the life certificate of the Complainant was not attached with SSS Family Pension Account( central govt. pension account) of the Complainant and for which said pension was stopped from November,2015.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that out of three pensions of the Complainant one Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension(Central Govt. Pension) is under the control of Govt. of India, Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001 and in this regard Bank is a media/authorized agent regarding the pension and the authority of Opposite Party No.1 has no right to decide or to take steps regarding the matter. The Complainant submitted the two life certificates of State Govt. pensions but the life certificate for central govt. pension was not submitted and for this, one staff of the Opposite Party No.1 physically attended the house of the Complainant but the door of the house of the Complainant was closed and as per documents the Complainant was out of the station regarding her treatment which has also been accepted by the Complainant. This matter was also informed to the son of the Complainant who was Auditor of the Opposite Party No.1/Bank but no response was received. For that reason, the central govt. pension was stopped and after maintaining all the formalities and forgo and cancel the old PPO started a new PPO afresh with due consent and acknowledgement.
Now, it is the submission of the Complainant that she had submitted three life certificate for her three pension account before the Opposite Party No.1 in the year 2015 whereas it is the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that only two life certificates were submitted by the Complainant for her two State Pensions in the year 2015. Here, Neither the Complainant has any proof that she had submitted three life certificate nor the Opposite Party No.1 has any proof that the Complainant had submitted two certificates only. Generally, it is seen that the Bank does not provide any receipt to the customer save and except the money transaction. So, it cannot be believed that the Complainant had submitted only two life certificates out of three pension accounts on the same day and date. It is beyond assumption & presumption that what prohibited the Complainant to submit two life certificates in place of three.
Further, it is contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that after knowing the fact that life certificate for central government pension has not been submitted by the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 sent a staff to find out the where about of the Complainant and that staff returned back to the Bank/ Opposite Party No.1 and reported that the door of the house of the Complainant was closed. This contention of the Opposite Party No.1 is denied by the Complainant. Here, the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to disclose the name of the staff who visited the house of the Complainant and also failed to disclose the date on which the said staff visited the house of the Complainant. No other proof or any document in this regard has been produced by the Opposite Party No.1. Apart from it, no letter has been sent to the address of the Complainant regarding non-submission of life certificate for central government pension. Again, it cannot be believed that no mobile no. of the Complainant has been provided to the Opposite Party No.1 because at the time of submitting life certificate or KYC the Bank Authority takes the mobile no. of the customer. Mostly, it has been seen that the Bank Authority uses to send message in the mobile no. of the customer as and when required. So, here it can be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
Further, it is the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that at the relevant point of time, the Complainant was out of station for her treatment and the said fact has been also accepted by the Complainant. Now, on perusal of the eye check up report dated 16.07.2016, it appears that the Complainant was in Kolkata at Renuka Eye Institute on 16.07.2016 and she was advised to got herself admitted in the said Renuka Eye Institute on 29.07.2016. If this be the so, then how it can be said that in the month of November,2015, the Complainant was not at her house at Blaurghat, Dakshin Dinjpur.
Now, on perusal of the 2.4 regarding Duty of the Bank in the event of non-submission of life certificate mentioned in the GUIDELINES FOR DISBURSEMENT OF CENTRAL SAMMAN PENSIONS TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORIZED PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS, notification no.45/03/2014 – FF(P), Ministry of Home Affairs, FFR Division, it is provided that It is presently seen that ,in case where the pensioner does not submit the life certificate, the banks stop the pension and let the matter rest at that. This is not enough. It is expected from the banks that, apart from stopping the pension, they should immediately visit the pensioner to find out why he/she did not submit the life certificate. This will help bank to timely update its data (in case the pensioner has expired) and recover any excess payments.
Further, in 2.3 it has been provided that If a pensioner does not submit his life certificate by 30th November and thereafter does not submit it even till next 31st October, then the pension is deemed to have been cancelled and in such cases, the bank should return the disburser`s portion of PPO to the CPAO. After the said deemed cancellation, if the pensioner re-appears either at the bank or at the Ministry, the pension shall only be resumed after a fresh sanction order is issued by the Ministry followed by an issuance of fresh PPO. In such cases, no arrears shall be paid.
In the instant case, after cancellation of the central Govt. pension, the Complainant wrote a letter on 13.06.2017 to the Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter Division New Delhi to resume the pension stating that she again submitted life certificate on November, 2016. After maintaining the formalities, the pension was again resumed from 10th February, 2017 by an order of the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, dated 14/NOV/2018.
Now, the burning question is that who will pay the loss of pension from November, 2015 to January, 2017 amounting to Rs.3,54,738/-. It has been clearly mentioned in 2.3 of “guidelines for disbursement of Central Samman Pensions to be followed by Authorized Public Sector Banks that in case of issuing afresh PPO, the Ministry of Home Affaire shall not pay the arrears. Though, Opposite Party No.1 has stated that he is only a media between the Pensioner and the Central Government to disburse pension to the pensioners. But the liability of the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be ignored or avoided.
Lastly, it should be kept in mind that it is not a case of simple pension but it is a case of a pension relating to a Freedom Fighter who sacrificed his life for making the India free from the grasp of salvation but the Opposite Party No.1 did not honour the said Freedom Fighter and handle the matter of pension of widow of that person carelessly and negligently.
Here, it is crystal clear from the above mentioned discussions that due to the act of negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service by the Opposite Party No.1/ Bank, the Complainant has faced loss of such amount
In view of the above mentioned discussions, it has been established that the Complainant is a bona fide consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1.
Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the Consumer Case No. 101 of 2019 is allowed on contest in part against the Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed against the Opposite Party No.2 but with cost.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.3,54,738/- only along with an interest according Banks rate from the date of filing of this case i.e. 12.09.2019 till the date of realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant within 45 day from the date of passing of this order. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) towards litigation cost failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
