State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surinder Pal Singh vs The Chairman, State Bank Of India on 19 July, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1727 of 2009.
Date of Institution: 09.12.2009.
Date of Decision: 19.07.2013.
Surinder Pal Singh Ex. Senior Assistant, State Bank of India, Talwandi
Mallian, Moga (Punjab) son of Sh.Raj Singh, Resident of H.No. B-IX-442,
Mohalla Santokh Pura, Jalandhar City.
....Appellant
Versus
1. The Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, State Bank
Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021.
2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
Sector 17, Chandigarh.
3. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Punjab, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
4. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Punjab Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Talwandi Mallian, Distt.
Moga (Punjab)
....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
04.11.2009 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. D.C. Mittal, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. K.S. Arya, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Sh. Surinder Pal Singh, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 04.11.2009 passed First Appeal No.1727 of 2009 2 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called as "the respondents"), on the grounds that he was working as Senior Assistant in the State Bank of India, Talwandi Mallian, District Moga and while posted at Talwandi Mallian, he was compulsorily retired by respondent no.4 vide order dated 27.01.2007 which is illegal, malafide and he was relieved on 31.01.2007.
3. The appellant filed the appeal against the said order dated 27.01.2007 to respondent no.3, but respondent no.3 also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 27.04.2007. The appellant was entitled to payment of the retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment and Pensionary benefits at the time of his compulsory retirement, which have been illegally withheld by the respondent without any reasonable cause. The appellant approached the respondents a number of times to make the payment of retiral benefits, but of no use. A letter on 01.06.2007 was delivered to respondent no.5 by hand. On 24.07.2007, respondent no.5 asked the appellant to submit the complete papers vide letter dated 24.07.2007. Leave Encashment was paid by the respondents on 05.08.2007 amounting to Rs.1,15,035/-, Gratuity on 05.10.2007 and General Provident Fund on 16.11.2007, but no interest on delayed payment was paid and the appellant is entitled to the payment of interest till the payment. A legal notice was served upon the respondents on 01.09.2007 with a request to make the payment of interest @ 12% p.a. along with damages and compensation for harassment. The payment of General Provident Fund was not made in full as he was entitled to Rs.6,96,386/- as per letter dated 10.09.2007 based on the statement of the provident fund in the year ending 31.03.2007, but he was sanctioned the payment of Rs.6,58,960/- and the payment was given on 16.11.2007. In this manner, Rs.37,426/- were paid less without any reason. A First Appeal No.1727 of 2009 3 vague reply was sent by respondent no.5 on 18.10.2007. The appellant approached respondent no.5 to make the payment of the remaining amount of the provident fund as well as interest, but of no use. The appellant suffered lot of mental tension and harassment. He has to take loan from State Bank of India Employees Co-operative, Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Jalandhar and has to sell his TVS and he is entitled to compensation.
4. It was prayed that the balance amount of provident fund with interest and compensation of Rs.20,000/- be refunded.
5. At the preliminary stage, the District Forum observed that the appellant has failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint that the respondents have committed any deficiency in service. Sanction letter dated 01.11.2007 shows that the amount to be debited to LHO was Rs.6,96,386/-, the amount payable to member was Rs.6,58,960/- and the amount to be remitted back to LHO (excess interest reversible) was Rs.37,426/-. The aforesaid sanction letter show that the respondent State Bank of India had not deducted Rs.37,426/- out of the total amount of EPF/GPF, but it was excess interest already paid to him. The appellant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank, while reversing Rs.37,426/- as excess interest paid to him, and the complaint was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.11.2009, the appellant has come up in appeal.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the District Forum was required to see if there exists any relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. The appellant, being an employee of the respondents, was subscriber of the Employees Provident Fund and the dispute was regarding the less payment First Appeal No.1727 of 2009 4 of the amount and the same falls within the ambit of the Act. The District Forum has also not taken into consideration the documents placed on record. In the half yearly statement, as on 31.03.2007, Rs.3,33,998/- on account of Employer's Contribution and Rs.3,33,998/- on account of Employee's Contribution along with interest were lying to the credit of the appellant, total of which comes to Rs.6,67,996/- and the same was receivable by the appellant, but the appellant was paid only Rs.6,58,960/- and the amount as on 1.11.2007 cannot be lesser than what was payable on 31.03.2007 and the same can be adjudicated upon only after issuing the notice. Reliance has been placed on the authority of the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Punjab National Bank Vs Sunil Kumar Poddar & Anr.", 2009 (1) CLT- 22(NC). It was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication.
9. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents has contended that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same and the appeal may be dismissed.
10. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have minutely scrutinized the entire record.
11. The District Forum has relied upon the Sanction Letter dated 01.11.2007 as per which the amount to be debited to LHO was Rs.6,96,386/- and the amount payable was Rs.6,58,960/- and the amount to be remitted back to LHO, excess interest (reversible) was Rs.37,426/-. The said amount was not deducted out of the total amount of EPF/GPF, but it was excess interest already paid and there is no deficiency in service. The District Forum has drawn the conclusion from the documents placed on record by the appellant, but has not taken into consideration the Half Yearly Account Statement for the year ending 31.03.2007. The District Forum ought not to have dismissed the complaint in limine at the very initial stage and the parties should be given a chance to lead evidence and the controversy should be First Appeal No.1727 of 2009 5 decided once for all, on merits. As per the law laid down in the above quoted authority i.e. Punjab National Bank Vs Sunil Kumar Poddar & Anr., the appellant is consumer.
12. The complaint should not be dismissed without issuing notice to the opposite party. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Punj Lloyd Limited Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd.", 2009 CTJ (Supreme Court) (CP), observed in Para-15 (relevant portion) as follows:-
"In view of our discussions made hereinabove and relying on the principles enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are, therefore, of the view that the Commission was not justified in rejecting the complaint merely by stating that the complicated nature of facts and law did not warrant any decision on its part before even issuing notice to the respondent and directing the filing of his defence, which, in our opinion, cannot be said to be decisive".
13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 04.11.2009 passed by the District Forum is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum, with the direction that after issuing notice to the respondents/opposite parties and affording appropriate opportunity to both the parties to file written version, leading evidence etc., the matter should be decided on merits.
14. Record of the District Forum along with copy of the order be sent to the District Forum forthwith. After receipt of record, the District Forum shall also procure the presence of the appellant.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 05.07.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Judicial Member
July 19, 2013. (Vinod Kumar Gupta)
(Gurmeet S) Member