Chairman, State Bank of India vs SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS

THIS is an appeal assailing the order dated 15.10.95 passed by the Calcutta District Forum in CDF Case No. 2306 of 1993 awarding an interest of Rs. 10,998/- for late crediting the retirement benefit of Rs. 2,73/305/- which was supposed to be credited on or about 1.3.89 whereas it was credited in favour of the respondent on 28.7.89 after about 5 months.

THE contentions of the appellant are that- the complaint petition is barred by law of limitation inasmuch as that the cause of action of the case as alleged by the appellant arose on 28.7.89 when the retirement benefit was credited to the complainant-respondent but the complaint has been lodged on 10.9.93 and that the employment certificate was submitted on 7.8.89 for which it was delayed to credit the retirement benefit of the respondent. It appears from the correspondences made between parties on the issue of crediting on the amount of retirement benefit that by correspondences dated 23.4.92 the appellant-Bank regretted for delay in crediting the amount in favour of the respondent and by letter dated 1.7.92 the appellant-Bank assured to look into the matter in consultation with its Zonal Office and that the complainant resting on said assurances of the appellant-Bank reminded it to sort out the dispute by his letters dated 19.10.92 and 14.6.93 and having no response the complainant/respondent has lodged this instant complaint. Practically the cause of action is continuing one and has not come to an end as yet in view that neither the claim of the respondent was paid nor is disowned till the filing of the complaint which is filed on such abnormal delay and failure to settle the claim. We hold that the complaint petition is not barred by limitation. The second contention of the appellant-Bank is that the employment certificate was not furnished in time and it was submitted on 7.8.89 but it appears that the appellant-Bank credited the amount of retirement benefit on 28.7.89 before receiving the employment certificate. So it is clear that it was possible to credit the amount of retirement benefit by the appellant-Bank subject to submission of the employment certificate which comes from the employer, the appellant-Bank should have credited the same in due time in order to save the respondent from loss the interest accrual on the amount of retirement benefit. The Bank is guilty of deficiency in service or negligence for not crediting the amount in time in favour of the respondent. Moreover the Bank has utilised the money for the period when it defaulted to credit in time in favour of the respondent.

We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order dated 25.10.95 passed by the District Forum in CDF Case No. 2306/93 and affirm it.

THE appellant-Bank would pay the sum of Rs. 10/998/- (ten thousand nine hundred and ninety eight) to the respondent within one month from the date of communication of this order. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we order the respective parties to bear their own cost. Order affirmed.