State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramesh Shaw vs The Deputy General Manager, State Bank ... on 25 August, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/211/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/01/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/80/2012 of District Nadia) 1. Ramesh Shaw Kalimoy Ghatak Lane, Bhangrapara, P.O. & P.S. - Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia, Pin-741 201. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India Administrative Office, Bidhannagar, C.I.T. Scheme no.VIIM, 1/16, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata - 700 054. 2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India Ranaghat Branch, Vivekananda Sarani, P.O. & P.S. - Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia, Pin-741 201. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Gangnapur Branch, P.O. & Vill. - Gangnapur, Dist. Nadia, Pin - 741 201. 4. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India Kolkata Local Head Office, Samriddhi Bhavan, 2nd Floor, 1, Strand Road, Kolkata - 700 001. 5. The Chief Manager (HR), Personnel Section, State Bank of India Administrative Office, Bidhannagar, C.I.T. Scheme no. VIIM, 1/16, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata - 700 054. 6. The Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre State Bank Bhavan, Madam Came Road, Mumbai - 400 021. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Bijan Kr. Sarkar(authorised)/, Advocate For the Respondent: Mrs. Debalina Lahiri, Advocate Mrs. Debalina Lahiri, Advocate Mrs. Debalina Lahiri, Advocate Mrs. Debalina Lahiri, Advocate Mrs. Debalina Lahiri, Advocate Mrs. Debalina Lahiri, Advocate ORDER 25.08.2015 MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON'BLE MEMBER
The present Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 20.1.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nadia, in C.F.Case No. CC/12/80, dismissing the Petition of Complaint on the ground of the absence of any 'claim' on the part of the Complainant.
Facts of the case, as appearing from the materials on records, are, in a nutshell, that the Appellant/Complainant, being an employee of State Bank of India, was a member of 'SBI Employee's Mutual Welfare Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme) since 1985. As a member of the said Scheme, the Bank concerned recovered regularly from the salary of the Appellant/Complainant until his retirement on 31.10.2010 Rs. 10/- per month on account of the 'Welfare Fund Component' of the said Scheme as averred in the Petition of Complaint. It is also averred in the Petition of Complaint that as per rule of the said Scheme, the entire amount of 'Welfare Fund Component', so recovered by the Bank concerned, was refundable to the member without interest after retirement of the member, i.e. the Appellant/Complainant herein, and only after refund of such 'Welfare Fund Component' the member became eligible for enjoying some medical benefits as specified in the said Scheme.
The Appellant/Complainant, after his retirement on 31.10.2010, applied on 29.11.2010 for refund of the entire amount of the 'Welfare Fund Component' of the said Scheme in prescribed form (Running Page-27 of Memo of Appeal), but the Respondents/OPs-Bank, despite writing series of letter to the competent authority including the Chief General Manager, Kolkata Local Head Office, did not refund the 'Welfare Fund Component' until the Complaint involved herein was filed before the Ld. District Forum concerned on 31.10.2012.
After filing the Complaint, the Respondents/OPs-Bank refunded on 26.12.2012 to the Appellant/ Complainant Rs. 3,090/- (Running Page-40 of Memo of Appeal) on account of contribution of the Appellant/Complainant towards the 'Welfare Fund Component' of the said Scheme. The said Scheme appears to have been in operation till 30.06.2003 whereafter the Bank concerned took unilateral decision to close new membership for the said Scheme.
With this factual background the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order dismissing the Complaint as mentioned at the outset. Dissatisfied with such judgment and order the Complainant has preferred the present Appeal.
The authorized representative for the Appellant/Complainant appearing submits in the very beginning that as per the said Scheme, which is related to rendering service to its members, the Appellant/Complainant is a Consumer u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In support such submission the authorized representative refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Jashi, reported in 2000 CTJ 1(SC) (CP), wherein it was held that the member of the Provident Fund Scheme under the 'Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act', which is related to rendering service, is a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The authorized representative also submits that as the Respondents/OPs-Bank refunded the 'Welfare Fund Component' only on 26.12.2012 against the Application dated 29.11.2010 for the same, there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/OPs-Bank for such unreasonable delay in refunding the amount which was admissible to the Appellant/Complainant as per the said Scheme and thereby denying the Appellant/Complainant in the intermediate period the medical benefits which were admissible only after the said refund is effected.
The authorized representative finally submits that in view of the submission so advanced, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside and the Complaint be allowed.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents/OPs-Bank filing BNA submits that the Scheme in question does not "include refund of the Welfare Component unless and until he ceases to be in service for any reason and provided he contributed to the Scheme for atleast 10 years", and that the Appellant/ Complainant, despite failing to contribute regularly to the said Scheme, had claimed for such refund of the 'Welfare Fund Component' and the same was refunded to the Appellant/Complainant on 26.12.2012. Thus by accepting such refund the Appellant/Complainant waived any further medical benefits of the said Scheme - the Ld. Advocate adds.
The Ld. Advocate further submits that there was no provision in the said Scheme which entitled the Appellant/Complainant to medical benefits as claimed after refund of the 'Welfare Fund Component' and that the Appellant/ Complainant till date has not filed any claim for medical bill.
The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the submission so put forward, the impugned judgment and order should be sustained.
We have heard both the sides, considered their rival submissions and perused the materials on records. Materials on records, particularly the Respondents/OPs-Bank's reference letter bearing No. CM/BR/56/50 dated 27.12.2012 (Running Page-40 of Memo of Appeal) indicates that the 'Welfare Fund Component', i.e. Rs. 3,090/- on account of Appellant's/Complainant's contribution towards the 'Welfare Fund Component' of the said Scheme, was refunded only on 26.12.2012 against the Appellant's/Complainant's application dated 29.11.2010 for the same (Running Page-27 of Memo of Appeal), thereby pointing to the unjustified delay on the part of the Respondents/OPs-Bank in refunding the said amount, the refund of which was admissible as per the said Scheme as is substantiated by the act of refund of the said amount, although belated, by the Respondents/OPs-Bank.
The above facts and evidence on records clearly indicate that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/OPs-Bank in doing inordinate delay in refunding the refundable amount in question, which was admissible as per the said Scheme, to the Appellant/ Complainant. For such delayed payment the Appellant/ Complainant is entitled to compensation and litigation cost.
The Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The Petition of Complaint is allowed in part. The Respondents/OPs-Bank is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant within 45 days from this date, failing which simple interest @ 9% per annum will accrue on the said amount from the date of default till realization in full. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER