AEROFLOT Vs. SVNR EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Thakur Gangti Branch, Godda appeals against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2003 passed by the District Forum, Godda, in Complaint Case No.1/2003 whereby the opposite party/appellant has been directed to pay to the complainant/respondent the entire pension amount that falls due with the opposite party along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of repudiation till the date of payment besides a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal in short, are that the complainant Kamini Devi is a widow of late Ramanand Prasad Verma. She is a pension holder of her deceased husband. She has been drawing the pension from the appellant Branch through her son, Mr. Ashit Kumar Verma to whom she has executed a power of attorney to operate her SBI Account No. A/4517 on 6.8.2002. Her son Shri Ashit Kumar Verma approached the appellant Bank and submitted a withdrawal form for Rs.2,000/- from the aforesaid account. The opposite party, who, having made all the entries of withdrawal of the aforesaid amount issued token in his favour to receive payment but, subsequently, asked to return back the said token and, accordingly, payment was withheld. It was alleged that the opposite party without prior information stopped the payment of her pension on the pretext that her Life Certificate had not been submitted to the opposite party. Even after submission of the Life Certificate, the opposite party did not allow her son Shri Ashit Kumar Verma to withdraw the aforesaid amount on the strength of power of attorney although he apprised the opposite party the provision of pension rule, which, deals with the mode of payment of pension through the agent or representative or power of attorney holder. Since the opposite party did not appreciate the contention of the complainant, a complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

(3.) On being noticed, the opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed the written reply wherein it was alleged that on 8.2.2001 the attorney of the complainant approached the opposite party with a photo copy of the power of attorney purported to have been executed in his favour along with an application requesting the opposite party to allow him to operate the Bank account of his mother who is too old to operate the amount. The opposite party's Bank allowed her son Shri Ashit Kumar Verma to withdraw the money from her account upto July, 2002 and directed him to submit certified copy or attested copy of the said power of attorney and the Life Certificate of his mother for November, 2001. It was alleged that even on repeated requests, neither he submitted the certified copy of the said power of attorney nor the Life Certificate of his mother. It was admitted that on 6.8.2002, the attorney of the complainant had gone to the opposite party's branch to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,000/- but on verification it was found that Life Certificate of his mother had not been submitted and hence withdraw of the aforesaid amount was refused. He was requested to bring his mother to show that she was then alive and to submit her life certificate which was not complied with. However, the Branch Manager of the opposite party Bank on 29.10.2002 personally got the Life Certificate of the complainant signed at her residence and thereafter the payment of pension was regularised as usual. The arrear of pension amount from July, 2002 to October, 2002 was credited in her Savings Bank Account. The Assistant General Manager of the appellant Bank through the letter dated 16.11.2002 informed the complainant to submit her Life Certificate which has to be submitted every year in the month of November. It was also informed that according to prescribed rule of the Bank, the pension amount cannot be paid on the basis of power of attorney. The Branch Manager of the appellant Bank accordingly communicated the instruction to comply with vide letter dated 27.11.2002 and hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Bank.