Kishor Kumar Singh vs Branch Manager, State Bank Of India

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, J

Heard the revisionist in person and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

The dispute relates to delay in crediting pensionary benefits in the account of the complainant.

The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 28.02.2015 dismissed the complaint:

Now considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, materials available in the record and the submissions made on behalf of the parties we find that complainant Kishore Kumar Singh is a Naval Pensioner. Original PPO bearing S.No. 09/97/B/S/02568/2008 dated 2008.12.31 issued by the CDA(N) Mumbai together with Descriptive roll in respect of the pensioner was forwarded to O.P bank for payment in favour of account No. 30394697224 (Anx-1).

Anx-2 is the copy of PPO and Anx-3 is the letter of Commander Sr. Staff officer (Pension) for Commodore with respect to revision of Pension. Complainant was entitled to get service pension along with the death cum Retirement gratuity of Rs. 173014/- and capitalized value of Rs. 430769/- total 603783/- as per the document Anx-2 and Anx-3.

Complainant has admitted that those two amounts were credited in his account but has alleged that O.P. bank has not credited the interest on those amounts for the period the amounts were with the bank.

In this regard the O.P. bank has pleaded that the amounts were credited in the account of the complainant immediately after the bank received the same from the concerned Authority and well within time after fulfillment of all formalities.

Complainant had to fulfill certain formalities and after their fulfillment, all papers related to pension were forwarded to CPPC Patna for payment and CPPC Patna paid the amount in time.

There is no document to show the actual date of deposit of amount in the account of the complainant and date of receiving the amount from the CPPC Patna.

In our view, O.P. bank is not negligent and deficient in providing service to the complainant . There is nothing in the record to substantiate the allegation of the complainant. Receiving of Pension paper (PPO) from the department concerned does not amounts to receiving of the amount mentioned in the PPO. It requires clearance from the head office of Patna.

In such view of the matter, we find that complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

(para 7 of the District Forum's Order)

The complainant appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard both sides, appraised the evidence and through its Order dated 06.10.2015 dismissed the appeal:

According to him his pensionary benefits were released in January 2009 and August 2009 , but one amount was paid after four months and other amount was paid after sixteen months. He approached the Bank several times claiming interest but without any relief and therefore he filed the complaint case.

In the written statement filed by the Bank , it was interalia stated that the Bank credited the amount immediately in the account of the complainant as soon as it was received and therefore there was no deficiency on the part of the Bank. As soon as PPO was received some formalities were required to be completed by the complainant and after completion of such formalities the papers were forwarded to CPPC, Patna for payment and as soon as the payment was received, it was credited in the account.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the materials produced, it is found that the learned District Forum rightly held that there is nothing to show how the Bank committed deficiency in service. The complainant could not prove that the Bank received the amount but deposited the same in his account after delay. Thus, complainant could not prove deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

Accordingly, in our opinion, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned judgement. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(paras 3,4 and 5 of the State Commission's Order)

The complainant has filed the instant revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 06.10.2015 of the State Commission.

We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. We note in particular the extracts of the respective appraisals made by the two fora quoted, verbatim, in paras 3 and 4 above. We find the findings of the State Commission (quoted in para 4 above) to be apt. And, on the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.

The revision petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed.

A copy of this Order be sent to the District Forum by the Registry within ten days.

So disposed.