BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT
THIRU Pon. GUNASEKARAN B.A.,B.L., MEMBER - I
COMMON ORDER IN FA NOs.689/2006 to 828/2006
(Against order in O.P.Nos.263/2001 to 406/2001on the file of the DCDRF,
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY 2010
Rep.by its Chairperson
and Managing Director,
31, Rajaji Salai, :: Appellant in all the 144 appeals
Chennai - 600 001. :: Counsel M/s.Aiyar and Dolia Advocates.
(Following persons are the Respondents in each Appeals respectively)
(Against order in O.P.No.263/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
R. Swarnalatha, W/o. R.Ramakrishnan, M/s.N.S.Rajan, Advocate
30/1, Karthik Apartments,
Vadapalani, Chennai – 26.
(Against order in O.P.No.264/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Plot No. 115,
Kottaiyur 630 106.
(Against order in O.P.No.265/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
S. Gowri Shankar,
Chennai - 600064.
(Against order in O.P.No.266/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
716, S.N.D. Layout,
(Against order in O.P.No.267/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
New No. 14,
Virugambakkam, Chennai - 600 092.
(Against order in O.P.No.268/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
S. Gnana Shanmugam,
53-A, Nesavalar Colony,
Nawab Thottam, Woraiyur, Trichy
(Against order in O.P.No.269/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
3/162 E -1, (Upstairs) Sri Sathiya Sai Nagar,
(Against order in O.P.No.270/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Moovarasampet, Chennai - 600 091.
(Against order in O.P.No.271/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Plot No. W 119, B Sector,
Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600 101.
(Against order in O.P.No.272/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
2,3rd Cross Srinivasa Nagar,
Tiruvanai Koil, Trichy- 5.
(Against order in O.P.No.273/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
14 - B,
Chennai - 600 017.
(Against order in O.P.No.274/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
P. Felix Amalanathan,
New No.7 Bharathi Nagar,
Selaiyur, Chennai- 600 073.
(Against order in O.P.No. 275/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.276/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Asst. Manager (Retd.),
New No.5, Thiyagarajapuram,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
(Against order in O.P.No.277/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Chennai - 600 045.
(Against order in O.P.No.278/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 600 083.
(Against order in O.P.No.279/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Kasturba Nagar, Adyar,
Chennai - 600 020.
(Against order in O.P.No.280/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.281/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
R. Venkata Ramanan,
6/E, West Vannier Street,
Indian Bank Colony,
K.K.Nagar (West), Chennai - 600 078.
(Against order in O.P.No.282/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Kumbakonam - 612 001.
(Against order in O.P.No.283/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
J. Urmila Devi,
No.H - 11. MIG 120 Flats,
Chennai - 600 083.
(Against order in O.P.No.284/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Choolaimedu, Chennai - 600 094.
(Against order in O.P.No.285/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.8, S.S. Layout,
Veerappa Thevar Colony,
(Against order in O.P.No.286/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Chennai - 600 033.
(Against order in O.P.No.287/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.10/8, Sri Devi Apartments,
Anna-Avenue, Baktavatsalam Nagar,
Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.
(Against order in O.P.No.288/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Trichy - 4.
(Against order in O.P.No.289/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.290/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
S/o.Rajagopala Iyer Nagar,
Chennai - 600 005.
(Against order in O.P.No.291/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Chennai - 600 078.
(Against order in O.P.No.292/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Chennai - 600 017.
(Against order in O.P.No.293/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Chennai - 600 076.
(Against order in O.P.No.294/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No. 45 - G,
Madipakkam, Chennai - 600 091.
(Against order in O.P.No.295/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
P. Syama Sundara Murthy,
Chennai - 600 033.
(Against order in O.P.No.296/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
M. Narayana Murthy,
New No.39, Old No.54,
Chennai - 600 003.
(Against order in O.P.No.297/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Radha Nagar, Chromepet,
Chennai - 600 044.
(Against order in O.P.No.298/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
New No.98, Old No. II Floor,
Chennai - 600 018.
(Against order in O.P.No.299/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.300/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)
1st Cross, Mahalakshmi Nagar,
Madipakkam, Chennai - 600 018.
(Against order in O.P.No.301/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Brindavan Nagar, Adambakkam, :: Respondent.
Chennai - 600 088. :: Counsel M/s.N.S.Rajan Advocates.
(Against order in O.P.No.302/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
New No.25, Old No.19,
(Against order in O.P.No.303/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
C32, III Cross, Thillai Nagar,
Chennai - 600 018.
(Against order in O.P.No.304/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.29, Srikant Extension,
(Against order in O.P.No.305/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
V. Usha, W/o.V.Sundaram,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
(Against order in O.P.No.306/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
K. Yasotha, W/o.Venkataraman.
(Against order in O.P.No.307/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
(Against order in O.P.No.308/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.905, Vaigai Colony,
Anna Nagar West,Chennai-600 040.
(Against order in O.P.No.309/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.905, Vaigai Colony,
Anna Nagar West,Chennai-600 040. .
(Against order in O.P.No.310/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.18, D.P.T.Rajan Salai,
K.K. Nagar, Chennai-600 078.
(Against order in O.P.No.311/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
(Against order in O.P.No.312/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
217, 6th Cross, 5th
Trichy - 17. :: Counsel M/s.N.S.Rajan Advocates.
(Against order in O.P.No.313/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
N. Padmasani, W/o.V.Natarajan,
C-9, Balamurugan Apartments,
Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024.
(Against order in O.P.No.314/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
G.K.M. Colony, Chennai - 600 082.
(Against order in O.P.No.315/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
B 395 Kurichi Housing Unit,
Phase II Industrial Estate Post,
(Against order in O.P.No.316/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
M. Sai Prasad,
Chennai - 600 033.
(Against order in O.P.No.317/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
B - 395, Kurichi Housing Unit,
Phase II, Industrial Estate Post,
(Against order in O.P.No.318/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Chennai - 600 053.
(Against order in O.P.No.319/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Radha Nagar, Chromepet,
Chennai - 600 044.
(Against order in O.P.No.320/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.5/10, Meenakshi Apartment,
Chennai - 600 033.
(Against order in O.P.No.321/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.7, Ayyasamy Nagar,
Chennai - 600 059.
(Against order in O.P.No.322/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
"Vasuki Illam" No.7/1164,
N.G.O.Colony, Nagamalai Pudukottai,
(Against order in O.P.No.323/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
A. Arul Samy,
No.9, Nithyananda Nagar,
(Against order in O.P.No.324/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Sabari Kannan, W/o.S.Kannan,
No.15E, Swargam Apartments,
Adyar, Chennai - 600 045.
(Against order in O.P.No.325/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
AB 132,New No.AB116,
Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar,
Chennai - 600 040.
(Against order in O.P.No.326/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
P.S. Uma, W/o.N.S.Mukundan,
No.11/D, Sravanthi Apartments,
Kodampakkam,Chennai - 600 024.
(Against order in O.P.No.327/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Beema Nagar,Trichy - 1.
(Against order in O.P.No.328/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.329/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Old No.67, New No. 6,
Kottur, Chennai - 600 085.
(Against order in O.P.No.330/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.331/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
M.R. Rajan, S/o.M.Rangaswamy,
Old No.32, New No.10,
Chennai - 600 033.
(Against order in O.P.No.332/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
M. Selvaraj, S/o.K.Madasamy,
Flat B, F 3, STPL Queen's Castle,
Chennai - 600 061.
(Against order in O.P.No.333/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Trichy - 2.
(Against order in O.P.No.334/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Ram Rahim Johny,
Chennai - 600 044.
(Against order in O.P.No.335/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Trichy. - 2.
(Against order in O.P.No.336/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
G. Ramani, S/o. S.Guruswami,
Chennai. - 600 024.
(Against order in O.P.No.337/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
6/170, Geetha Nagar,
(Against order in O.P.No.338/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.8, Ahamed Colony,
Trichy. - 3.
(Against order in O.P.No.339/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
V. Uma, W/o.R.Sridhar,
Old No.66, New No.8 A,
Chennai - 600 085.
(Against order in O.P.No.340/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
16/22 A, Govindaswami Layout,
(Against order in O.P.No.341/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
23/19, Jambukeswara Nagar,
Trichy - 620 005.
(Against order in O.P.No.342/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Flat No.B2, Shreenath Flats,
Door No.3, K.V.Colony,
(Against order in O.P.No.343/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.5, Golden Nagar,
(Against order in O.P.No.344/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
E-4, Shanthi Apartments,
Chennai - 600 004.
(Against order in O.P.No.345/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
R. Natesan, S/o.S.Ramachandran,
Flat No.32, II Floor, No.31,
Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020.
(Against order in O.P.No.346/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
V. Swaminathan, S/o.R.Venkatraman,
'Evergreen' Plot No.2,
Valasaravakkam, Chennai - 600 087.
(Against order in O.P.No.347/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Sangathidal, Ponmalai patti, Trichy-4.
(Against order in O.P.No.348/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Trichy - 3.
(Against order in O.P.No.349/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Lalitha Srinivasan, W/o.S.Srinivasan,
Guduvancherry - 603 202.
(Against order in O.P.No.350/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.60 (Old No.99)
Kellys, Chennai - 600 010.
(Against order in O.P.No.351/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
S. Suresh, S/o.N.V.Subramaniam,
Ayappan Nagar, Madipakkam,
Chennai - 600 010.
(Against order in O.P.No.352/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.353/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
M. Rajalakshmi, W/o.K.R.Natarajan,
Chennai - 600 064.
(Against order in O.P.No.354/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
B. Venkataramani, S/o.S.Balasubramanian,
Flat No. F-7, Arihant Flats,
(Against order in O.P.No.355/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
57/7, Koil Annan Nagar,
Srirangam, Trichy - 6.
(Against order in O.P.No.356/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
S. Sakthi Mala,
Ashok Nagar,Chennai - 600 083.
(Against order in O.P.No.357/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Kumbakkonam - 612 001.
(Against order in O.P.No.358/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
B. Poongkodi, W/o.L.Chandrasekaran,
No.12/24, 'Andavar Arul'
Elango Nagar, Virugambakkam,
Chennai - 600 092.
(Against order in O.P.No.359/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
R. Jambunathan, S/o. Ramanatha Bhatt,
Indian Bank Colony, Amattur,
Chennai - 600 053.
(Against order in O.P.No.360/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
G. Sudhir Kumar, S/o.K.Gopal Ram,
Chennai - 600 033.
(Against order in O.P.No.361/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
S. Narayanan, S/o.S.Srinivasan,
No.13B, TNGO Colony,
Chennai - 600 061.
(Against order in O.P.No.362/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.26, NGO Colony,
Pudukottai - 622 001.
(Against order in O.P.No.363/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Chennai - 600 004.
(Against order in O.P.No.364/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.365/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
New No.7 (Old No.4), Pelathope,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
(Against order in O.P.No.366/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.367/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
8, Kandasamy Layout,
(Against order in O.P.No.368/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
R. Venkatesan, S/o.K.S.Ramaswamy,
Flat G-3, 'Subash Athreya',
Bhavaneswari Nagar, Chromepet,
Chennai - 600 044.
(Against order in O.P.No.369/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.370/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Plot No. 498, Kalai Koil Nagar,
Tirunelveli - 11.
(Against order in O.P.No.371/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
T.G. Selvaraj, S/o.M.T.Govindaraj,
Dindigul Dist. - 624 301.
(Against order in O.P.No.372/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
40, Annapoorna Layout,
Near Gandhi Nagar,
Tiruppur. - 641 603.
(Against order in O.P.No.373/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
171, 1st Floor,
(Against order in O.P.No.374/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
S/o. S.Vasudeva Iyer,
(Against order in O.P.No.375/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
R. Sampath Kumar,
Trichy District. - 620 006.
(Against order in O.P.No.376/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
R. Lakshminarasimhan, S/o.V.Ramasami,
B-2,II Floor, Nanda Flats,
Saidapet, Chennai. - 600 015.
(Against order in O.P.No.377/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
B - 37,
(Against order in O.P.No.378/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
A. Thaines Marian,
Plot No. H, Vivek Nagar,
Ambattur, Chennai. - 600 053.
(Against order in O.P.No.379/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
V. Karmegam, S/o.K.Vairavelu,
(Against order in O.P.No.380/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
S/o. J.Kosala Ram Naidu,
A-4, Navajeevan Flats,
Anna Nagar West, Chennai- 600 040.
(Against order in O.P.No.381/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
SP-58 (New No.33),
1 Sector, K.K.Nagar,
Chennai. - 600 078.
(Against order in O.P.No.382/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
J. Krishnaji Bhat, S/o.T.V.Jaganatha Bhat,
New No.14, Elegan Flats,
Kodambakkam, Chennai. - 600 024.
(Against order in O.P.No.383/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Sriram Nagar, Kottiyur.
(Against order in O.P.No.384/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Chennai - 600 034.
(Against order in O.P.No.385/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.5, Sakthi Nagar,
(Against order in O.P.No.386/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Girija Ganesh Shankar,
W/o. Ganesh Shankar,
Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.
(Against order in O.P.No.387/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
134/6, Susil Flats,
Chennai - 600 033.
(Against order in O.P.No.388/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Old No.8, New No.15,
Purasawalkam, Chennai - 600 007.
(Against order in O.P.No.389/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
D - 277, III Cross, Tennur,
Trichy - 17.
(Against order in O.P.No.390/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
P. Thiruppathi, S/o.L.Perumal,
(Against order in O.P.No.391/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
No.M-42C, HIG Flats,
S.V.Lingam Salai, K.K.Nagar,
Chennai - 600 078.
(Against order in O.P.No.392/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Flat 'C' Sreenivas, Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 078.
(Against order in O.P.No.393/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.394/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
S/o. N.Soundara Rajan,
Flat No.1, Badal Flats, 125 A,
(Against order in O.P.No.395/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Natarajapuram South Colony,
Thanjavur - 613 007.
(Against order in O.P.No.396/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
P. Sundara Raj (Deceased)
Pon Parvathi Illam
Trichy – 21
(Against order in O.P.No.397/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Nehru Nagar, Chromepet,
Chennai - 600 044.
(Against order in O.P.No.398/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
New No.1, Karunanidhi Nagar,
(Against order in O.P.No.399/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.400/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Sri Ramachandran Nagar,
Ayyappanthangal, Chennai - 600 056.
(Against order in O.P.No.401/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
(Against order in O.P.No.402/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
AB 121, Shanthi Colony,
Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.
(Against order in O.P.No.403/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Plot No. 31-D, 2/26,
Uma Nagar, Thanjavur - 631 007.
(Against order in O.P.No.404/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Saminathan Nagar, Kottivakkam,
Chennai - 600 041.
(Against order in O.P.No.405/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
P.S.V.L. Narasimha Rao,
5/2, Apoorva Flats,
Chennai - 600 041.
(Against order in O.P.No.406/2001 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North))
Flat No.26 Premier Flats,
Chinthamani, Trichy - 2.
In all the above appeals, the respondents as complainants filed complaints before the District Forum against the appellant claiming certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaints against the opposite party and passed a common order. Against the said impugned order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.29.9.2006 in COP.NO.263/2001 to COP No.406/2001
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT.
1. The opposite party in all the above complaints, are the appellants.
2. This common order shall dispose of all the above appeals.
3. The respondents in all the above appeals, as complainant, independently filed the complaints, seeking direction against the opposite parties;
1. To pay 18% interest on the delayed disbursement of commuted amount,
2. For a sum of Rs.5000/- towards expenses incurred in making complaints to the opposite party,
3. For a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation, for mental agony and suffering, caused due to deficiency in service and
4. For cost,
on the following grounds
4. The complainants, who were the employees of the opposite party bank, opted for voluntary retirement, under the VRS 2000 scheme, then retired from service on various dates, (as indicated in each complaint, for which annexure is also given in the judgement of the District Forum). The opposite party, while calculating the pension, has not given notional addition of 5 years weightage, as per Regulation 29(5) of the Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995. Further pension was also not calculated on the complainant’s Last Pay drawn basic, including gratuity, Provident Fund, etc. Pension was not given immediately after one month, whereas after the lapse of several months, pension and gratuity were given. For the delayed payment of pension, as well gratuity, interest was also not given.
5. The complainants, though given letters, immediately for commutation, amount was given after the delay of several months. The opposite party should have paid the interest for the delayed commutation, or they should have paid full pension, till the credit of commutation amount, which they failed, should be construed as deficiency in service. Because of the delayed payment, the complainants were compelled to borrow money to meet the day today expenses, thereby they have been put to undue mental agony and suffering. Despite representation by the complainants, on various dates, the opposite party failed to rectify the defects, which also should be construed as deficiency in service. Therefore, the opposite party should be directed to pay the amount, as indicated in the complaints, and for this purpose, complaints were filed.
6. The appellant/opposite party, filing a detailed version in OP.No.309/2001, adopted the same, in other complaints, and brief facts pertaining to the cases as follows:
7. The dispute raised in all the complaints is between the employer and employee, and in this view the complainants are neither consumers nor the opposite party is a service provider. Therefore, the complainants will not come within the meaning of consumer, and the service said to be rendered by the opposite party also will not come within the meaning of ‘service’, which should follow the complainants are not at all maintainable.
8. The various averments in the complaint, would prove that the dispute is between the employer and employee, regarding the alleged benefits accrued in the service, which will not come within the definition of service, as ruled by the
9. There was mass voluntary retirement of 3294 employees, during the short span of period, and while calculating the pension and other benefits, the delay was very negligible, which cannot be termed as wanton delay. There is no provision for payment of interest, under the Pension Regulation, and in this view, the claim of interest is baseless. No prejudice has been caused to the complainant in commuting the commutation w.e.f. the date of retirement, since the pension can be restored after 15 years from the date of retirement. The other allegations are denied as false. The complainant has not availed any service from the bank, and therefore, there is no deficiency in service also. Hence it is prayed all the complaints may be dismissed with cost.
10. The District Forum, Chennai (North), after receiving affidavits from the parties, marking certain documents, receiving written arguments, hearing either side, analysed the rival contentions, elaborately. The deliberation let to the conclusion, that the reliefs sought for by the complainants, are not relating to any retirement benefits, or dispute in the service condition, that the complainants are consumers, as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, herein after called the ‘Act’, that the Fora has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, raised before the Consumer Fora, that for the delayed payment of commutation, all the complainants are entitled to interest at 18% p.a., and the, starting date should be arrived at as per the regulations. On the basis of the above findings, the following directions were issued by the District Forum, as per the order dt.29.6.2006, directing the opposite party
1. to pay 18% interest for the delayed payment of commuted pension as per the rules and regulations, till the date of filing of the complaint, and the date should be arrived as per the regulations.
2. to pay damage of Rs.3000/-, towards expenses made by them.
3. to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- to each complainant under the heading rendering deficiency in service, which caused mental agony and other kind of sufferings, and
4. to pay a cost of Rs.2500/- to each complainant.
The above directions caused grievance and the result is above appeals, against all the complaints.
11. The complainants though claimed more compensation and more expenses, the District Forum has not conceded in entirety, except interest. For the negativing portion of the claim, the aggrieved complainants, have not preferred any independent appeals, though a feeble attempt was made in the written statement to enhance the amount, which may not be possible, generally, unless separate appeals are filed.
12. Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. A.L.Somayaji, appearing for appellant as well as the counsel for the respondents, perused the written submission in addition to the documents filed by them, order of the District Forum, and also the rulings relied on by the parties.
13. The learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, to upset the findings of the District Forum in all the complaints, urged on three grounds, viz.
1. that the complainants are not consumers as defined under Sec.2(1)(d) of the Act and the payment of pension made under the terms of contract of personal service, will not come within the definition under Sec.2(1)(o).
2. that even after the complainants retired voluntarily, the relationship between them and the bank has not come to an end, and therefore if at all they have to agitate their right under the Industrial Dispute Act, since the benefit claimed in all the complaints are retiral benefits.
3. that the contract of personal service continues to subsist, even after the voluntary retirement, and therefore they should be construed as employees as defined under Regulation Regulation 2(1) of the Pension Regulations.
Elaborating the above points, taking us to various decisions of the Apex court, as well as the National Commission, including State Commissions, a strenuous submission was made to eclipse the findings of the District Forum, for which, the ultimate prayer was allowing all the appeals.
14. The learned counsel for complainants/ respondents, on the other hand submitted, that after the voluntary retirement, which was accepted, the relationship between the complainants and the bank has come to an end, or the relationship of master and servant ceased to exist, and therefore it is not necessary for the complainants, to approach anyother forum, for relief. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants, that the benefits claimed in all the complaints, are not retiral benefits, under Pension Regulations such as for calculation of pension, or for gratuity or something like that, whereas the claims made in all the complaints relate to claim of interest, for the delayed payment of commutation amount, for compensation, due to deficiency in service, and therefore there is no necessity for the complainant to go elsewhere and the Forum chosen by them, is having enormous jurisdiction, which cannot be denied. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that pension is paid recognizing the past service, and it is not gratis or free payment, and therefore the past service should be construed as consideration, and in this view, the service expected to be served by the bank should come within the definition of service under the Act, as well the complainants also should come within the meaning of consumers. The learned counsel elaborately arguing on the above points, took much pain to project a case of acceptance, relying on mostly
15. By going through the written submissions, and the decisions brought to our notice, in depth, as well as the factual aspects of the case, giving our anxious thought, and taking into consideration the purpose of enacting the Consumer Protection Act, we are constrained and convinced to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainants, since in our view the submissions are supported by the ratio, laid down by the Apex Court.
16. The respondents were the employees of the appellant bank, not in dispute, and they opted for voluntary retirement in VRS 2000 scheme, announced by the bank, is also not under challenge. As detailed in the complaints, all the complainants were retired from service, under the above said scheme on various dates, as available in the annexure attached with the District Forum judgement also. All the complainants are entitled to pension, gratuity etc., as provided under Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995, including commutation amount, on their option, which they did also. In order to provide pension benefits, and other benefits, admittedly the opposite party has created Indian Bank (Employee’s) Pension Fund, and to the said fund, contributions were also made by the Bank, at the rate prescribed under the said regulations. The Bank/ opposite party, alone is the competent authority to calculate the pension, gratuity, commutation, etc., and they are not controlled by anyother external agency, and in this view, the bank alone is answerable to its ex-employees, whether they retired on superannuation or under voluntary scheme. The complainants in all the cases having retired voluntarily, they are entitled to pension, gratuity commutation of pension, are also not under challenge.
17. In all the complaints, though the complainants have stated that while calculating the pension, notional addition of 5 years weightage was not given, on that basis admittedly they have not claimed any relief in the complaints. The complaints are not aimed to refix the pension or to calculate the gratuity or anyother retiral benefits. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel, the complainants are not claiming any retiral benefits, before the Consumer Forum. The main grievance of the complainants, appears to be that, within the reasonable time, as per the regulations, immediately pension was not paid, commuted value of the pension also was not paid, and till the commuted value was deposited, full pension was also not paid, which are also admitted facts. At later point of time, say with 3 or 4 months delay, amounts were paid to all the complainants. Under the pension scheme, the pensioners are entitled to commute the pension, in this way here also all the complainants, sought for commutation, amount fixed, not paid forthwith. As said in the written submission, since many people had gone under the VRS scheme at a time, naturally there would be delay, and in this view, here also delay had taken place, for which, generally we cannot blame. Butwhen the delay was caused, whether it was administrative delay or otherwise, the retired employee’s benefits were deprived of. Therefore, they have claimed interest, which we will discuss at later stage. When commutation of pension was calculated, commuted amount was not paid, ordinarily till the commuted amount is paid, or deposited in the account of the retired employee, full pension should be paid. If full pension is not paid, reduced pension, as per the commutation was later paid, as in this case, then they should be compensated by paying interest, for the commuted amount, and this is the prayer made in all the case. This claim, though in a way connected with retirement, it will not come as retiral benefit directly, since for the deficiency said to have been committed by the bank, interest as well as compensation are claimed, for which admittedly, there is no provision in the Pension Regulations. Therefore, all the complainants have approached the Consumer For a and the jurisdiction is under challenge.
18. In this context we have to see the definition for consumer and service.
Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) defines:
“Consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person”
It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the complainants have not paid any consideration, to avail any service, and therefore, they will not come within the meaning of consumer, which is questioned, challenged.
Sec.2(1)(o) defines Service as
“Service means service of any description, which is made available to potential (users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, boarding or lodging or both (housing construction) entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.”
The last sentence would indicate, if the service is free of charge, or under a contract of personal service, that will not come within the meaning of service, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. Therefore, we have to see, whether there was any consideration paid by the complainant, whatever may be its form, to bring them within the meaning of consumer, and whether the opposite party has to render service as given in the definition. If these two conditions are fulfilled, then there would be no difficulty, to exercise jurisdiction, by the consumer Fora.
19. In the Pension Regulations or in anyother Act, under which the parties will come, there is no prohibition or bar, to exercise jurisdiction, under the Consumer Protection Act. In other words, either impliedly or expressly, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, is not excluded under the Pension Regulations also. The Act, as repeatedly held by the Apex Court, was enacted to have an easy access of justice, speedy in nature, less expensive, in addition to the benefits available in anyother Act, which is incorporated so in Sec.3, which says “Act not in derogation of anyother law” thereby making it clear, even if anyother provisions are available under anyother Act elsewhere, unless it is barred specifically, the benevolent provisions of this Act, has to be extended to the person who seeks the help, which is the dictum of the Apex Court.
20. The Apex Court, in Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation reported in AIR 2007 SC 1819, had an occasion to consider the applicability of the Act, with reference to Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948. Considering the previous judicial pronouncement, wherein it is observed “the Act being a beneficial legislation, should receive liberal consideration”, then further saying referring Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha and Ors, that “The court had gone to the extent of saying that if two different fora have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the consumer forum would not be barred, and the power of the consumer forum to adjudicate upon the dispute could not be negated”. It is not the case of anybody, that this kind of case is barred under any provisions of this Act, or anyother law, though barred, as claimed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant, considering the definition for “service” and ”consumer”, which we will deal hereafter at appropriate time.
21. The submission of the learned counsel for complainants, that the past service rendered by the complainants, which created a right to claim pension, is the consideration to come as consumer under sec. 2(1)(d)Iii), cannot be so easily ignored, since the Bank is providing retirement benefits to its employees, on the basis of the past service alone. Now, it is the settled position of law, as declared by the Supreme Court in Gorakpur Univesity and others Vs. Dr. Shiktra Prasad nagendra and others reported in AIR 2001 SCW page 2819 “that the pension and gratuity are no longer mattes of any bounty to be distributed by Government, but are valuable rights acquired and property in the hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement thereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest” . But for the service rendered by the complainants, the bank is not liable to pay pension, and the complainants also are not entitled to claim pension. The consideration, contemplated under the definition, need not be in cash and it may be of any kind, ensuring or creating such right, and in this view we are of the considered opinion, that the past service rendered by the complainants, should be taken as consideration, and therefore it cannot be said that there is free of service, and the definition for consumer, cannot be invoked.
22. The learned senior counsel for the appellant, in order to overcome this difficulty, would urge that even after the voluntary retirement, the relationship between the complainants and the bank, remains intact, as that of servant and master, and therefore when they are in service (deemed to be in service or relationship exist), they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of consumer fora, and if at all, they have to invoke the Industrial Dispute Act, and in this view, this Fora has no jurisdiction. In support of the above submissions, ruling rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High court, also relied on. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for complainant, that as per the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Shampu Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development India Ltd., reported in AIR 2002 SCW 1165, the relationship of the employer and the employee, comes to an end on retirement, and therefore,the view expressed by Bombay High court, which is also distinguishable cannot be extended or followed, as applicable to the present case.
23. In the Pension Regulations 1995, we find a clause, relating to recovery of pecuniary loss, caused to the bank under clause 5, which says
“No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution”.
Further, under the heading Commercial Employment, after retirement, there is a condition, which says
“If a pensioner who immediately before his retirement was holding the post of an officer and wishes to accept any commercial employment before the expiry of two years from the date of his retirement, he shall obtain the previous sanction of the Bank to such acceptance.”
24. On the basis of the above provisions, submissions were made, as if still there is a relationship of master and servant, and that is why even after the retirement, for taking action, as well as to control the service, conditions are imposed, and therefore, if the dispute comes between the employer and the employee, the forum is elsewhere. In fact, if the employer and employee relationship subsist, there is no need for this kind of condition to be incorporated, under the Pension Regulations, because an employee, while in service, not entitled to go for another service, and if he commits any irregularity, an action could be taken, under the existing rules. Because of the fact, the relationship between employer and employee, ceased, still to have control for limited purpose, the above said conditions were incorporated, that does not revive the employer, employee relationship, after retirement. This clause is made applicable only to the post of an officer, not to all. Considering this status and commercial employment, not to be misused some restrictions imposed, and re-employment elsewhere was not totally, prohibited. For these reasons it cannot be a ground, to say that the employer and employee relationship continues, even after the retirement.
25. The fallacy of the submission is exposed, even by the circular issued by the Bank, where the retired employees are not treated as employees, which is also pointed out by the District Forum, as seen from paragraph 34 of the judgement. The bank had issued a circular dt.8.3.2001, clarifying that the retirees are not employees, they should be considered on commercial terms. In the said circular, and it was further clarified that for the subjects relating to loans, housing loan and NSC loans etc., the retirees are considered only as general public. This circular is not challenged. Though a control was sought to be exercised under the Pension Rules for limited purpose, against the retirees, when the question of benefit comes, they are excluded from the purview of employees, treated only as public. Thus, we find the bank is blowing hot and cold, which is not permissible and acceptable.
26. Aid is also sought, on behalf of the appellant to urge that the employees are if at all entitled to move the civil court, or anyother forum, and not to come under the Consumer For a, from the decision in Sudhir Chandra Sarkar Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., and others, reported in (1984) 3 Supreme Court Cases 369, when this Act, has not come into force, the Supreme Court has observed, that “Pension and gratuity in the matter of retiral benefits and for recovering the same must be put on par. The gratuity, like pension, is a retirement benefit for long and continuous service as a provision for old age. It is earned as a matter of right on fulfilling the conditions subject to which it is earned. It is not a gratuitous payment depending upon the discretion or sweet will or fancy of the employer. Like pension, it can also be recovered through civil suit.” In the case on hand, as pointed out above, it is not the case of the complainants that they are entitled to gratuity amount or pension amount, and their case relates to delay in payment, for which they claim interest, in view of the fact, there was deficiency in service. Therefore, on fact, the above ruling is not applicable, and the same will not advance the case of the appellant to oust the jurisdiction of the Fora, or to drive the complainant elsewhere to claim the benefits, which they have claimed in all the complaints.
27. In Kishore Lal case, referred above, the
“A contract of service is excluded for consideration from the ambit of definition of ‘service’ in CP Act, whereas a contract for service is included. As regards service rendered free of charge under Section 2(1)(o), the court held that the medical practitioners, government hospitals/nursing homes and private hospitals/nursing homes, who render service without any charge whatsoever to every person availing of the service would not fall within the ambit of ‘service’ under Sec.2(1)(o) of the Act.
In the case of existing service, i.e., where employee and employer relationship continues, it can be said, that there is personal service, which is excluded under the definition. As pointed out by us above, which is also supported by judicial precedents, the relationship of employer and employee, snapped or came to an end, in this case, on acceptance of the voluntary retirement, and therefore applying the above observation, expelling the complainants from the definition, is an impossible one.
28. In UCO Bank and others Vs. Sanwar Mal reported in 2004 ii LLJ 243, we find an observation in paragraph 9, which reads:
“Moreover, resignation brings about complete cessation of master and servant relationship whereas voluntary retirement maintains the relationship for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits, in view of the past service.
On the strength of the above observation, an attempt was made to say, the relationship is still maintained. In the case involved in the above decision, it seems the benefit claimed was retiral benefits, in view of the past service rendered. In our case, the benefits claimed is not one of retiral benefits, whereas for not granting retiral benefits in time, having granted belatedly, interest and compensation alone are claimed. In the above judgement, it is said the relationship for the purpose of granting of retiral benefits maintained, since retiral benefits were claimed and not for anyother purpose, that too, when the benefits were already given.
29. The Apex Court, has considered the exclusion clause available in Sec.2 (1)(o) of the Act, in State of Orissa Vs. Divisional Manager, LIC and another, reported in II(1996) CPJ 31 (SC) and held that the respondent therein being a Government servant, is bound by the service conditions and the state was rendering services, free of charge, and in this view, in case of Government Servant, Consumer Protection Act, is not applicable. When this decision was relied on before the District Forum, it was rightly rejected, distinguishing on facts, that case relates to Government servant, whereas the case on hand something different, in which distinction, we are unable to find any error. This is the position, in the case decided by the National Commission, in State of Haryana Vs. Lila Ram reported in IV (2008) CPJ 146 (NC), which can be seen from paragraph 4 of the judgement. In this case, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Bhavani, reported in 2008-II-LLJ-1079 (SC), which we are going to advert herein after elaborately was referred and distinguished. As seen from paragraph 6 of the order in State of
“The ruling therein pertains to whether contributor to the Employees Provident Fund would fall within the definition of a consumer. It was in that context that the
thereby indicating, if a person claims benefits under the employee provident fund, he would come under the Consumer Protection Act. In the case on hand, in the place of Employee Provident Fund, the complainants claim the benefit from the bank. The Bank lone is entitled to disburse the retiral benefits, and any deficiency, they alone are answerable. Therefore, that ruling also will not come to the aid of the appellant.
30. A Division Bench of Bombay High court, in Philips Employees Union, Mumbai Vs. P.T. Jagtap and others reported in 2005 II LLJ 107, has observed, that even after the voluntary retirement, the employee-management relationship continues, applying the said principle here also, the case should be rejected, as per submission of the learned senior counsel.
In the paragraph 6 of the said decision, it is said
The facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable as the grievance raised by the
There benefits claimed, had direct nexus with the VRS scheme, and the dispute was regarding commutation amount, as well as pension, in that sense it had certainly direct nexus with the VRS. Therefore, the Division bench cautiously and consciously exercised the words “for the limited purpose, they could be said to be workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act” and not otherwise, which was rightly distinguished, elaborately by the learned counsel for respondent, in the written submission, which is well acceptable to us. Therefore, on the basis of this decision also, which is beyond our reach, to say between the appellant and the respondent, employer and employee relationship continues, to say Consumer For a’s jurisdiction is ousted.
31. In a case reported in Comptroller and Auditor General of India & another Vs. Shivkant Shankar Naik reported in 1 (2003) CPJ 276 (NC), considering the factual position, and the person who claimed the benefit was a Government servant, and remedy is also available for him, before the Administrative Tribunal, which is held “dispute regarding payment of provident fund, not consumer dispute”, it is not the case before us. Here also, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner case was distinguished.
32. In Dr. K.T. Shivaiah Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Canara Bank reported in I (1992) CPJ 244, the National Commission has held the failure on the part of the respondent bank, not crediting the commuted value of the pension in the SB account of the appellant therein, was deficiency in service, for which interest also should be paid, which was fixed at Rs.18%, which is relied on by the complainant, sought to be explained by the learned senior counsel, as seen from para 22 of the written argument of the appellant. The explanation offered appears to be futile exercise, since we find no merit in the distinction sought to be made, since the ratio is directly applicable to our present case also, which cannot be denied.
33. The learned counsel for respondents/ complainants, drew our attention to say that all the complaints would come within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, a ruling of the
When the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who is the person responsible for must be held to be a ‘service giver’ within sec.2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the respondent squarely comes within definition ‘consumer’ under sec.2(1)(d)(ii) as such a member and availing services of the Pension Scheme, the inevitable conclusion is that consumer forum has jurisdiction and Consumer Protection Act has applicability in resolving matters arising out of the scheme”.
There the responsibility of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is discussed, confirming, the person responsible for the working of 1995 pension scheme, concluding, he should be held to be service giver, within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act. In the place of Regional Provident Commissioner, we have to substitute the bank, since the bank should be construed as ‘service giver’ because of the admitted provision that all the complainants were the employees of the bank and accrued the right of pension, for the past consideration viz. service. The above ruling is squarely applicable by all force, to the case in hand. The Apex Court elaborately considered the definition under Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) as well as 2(1)(o), and finally came to the conclusion that the respondent therein viz. Bhavani, who was a worker in cashew factory, managed by Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation, who is coming under the purview of Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, comes squarely within the definition of consumer, within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d)(ii), since she had contributed amount, then availing the service rendered by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is expected to implement the scheme. Here also, under the Pension Regulations, a fund created, whether it comes under trust or not, which is for the benefit of the retirees, is managed and controlled by the bank, as service provider, and therefore they cannot easily escape, explaining that the relationship still continues or voluntary retirees are outside the purview of consumer or service rendered freely. We are unable to find any materials, to distinguish the above said ruling. Applying the ratio therein, unquestionably, we have to come to a conclusion, that all the complainants are consumers and under the VRS scheme, the bank is a service provider.
34. In our cases, admittedly, within the specified time or the reasonable time commuted amount was not paid, at the same time, full pension also not paid till the date of deposit of the commuted value, whereas reduced pension alone has been paid which should be construed as deficiency in service, on the part of the bank.
35. The learned counsel for the complainants drew our attention to the circular issued by the Indian bank dt.12.12.2005, wherein they have rectified the mistake, which they have committed in the case of the complainants, when it comes to other employees, probably retired on and after 1.7.2003, whereas refusing to give the same benefits to the complainants, who have retired previously. If the stand taken by the bank before us is legally sound, and acceptable, supported by a judicial precedent, as urged, certainly in our view they would not have corrected the mistake by amending the regulation 41(6), which says “Where however, payment of commuted value of pension could not be made within the first month after the date of retirement or within the first month after the date when the commutation becomes absolute as the case may be, the difference between the monthly pension and the commuted pension shall be paid for the period between the date following the date of retirement or the date when the commutation becomes absolute, as the case may be, and the date preceding the date on which commuted value of pension is deemed to have been paid ”. It is not known, why the bank is so adamant, in not extending the same benefit to the complainants, who were also their employees once, rendered service, opted to go on voluntary retirement, when the scheme was introduced. It is not charitable on the part of the appellant also, to extend the said benefits to the complainants, since other banks of the same nature had extended, the said benefits to their employees, who are also covered under the same VRS, formulated by the Central Government. As seen from the communication emanated from the Bank of India,dt.30.10.2001, though there is no provision in Pension Rules, including Central Civil service, for payment of interest, they have decided to pay full pension, to such employees upto date of the credit of the commutation amount to their bank account, which should be the normal procedure. Even in the case of Government employees, what we understand is, when there was some delay in crediting the commuted value of the pension, full pension is paid upto the date of the credit of the commuted value, and thereafter alone reduced pension is given, thereby compensating the retirees not causing any problem. The bank, instead of following this natural law, which was accepted by them later, denied the benefits, though they are entitled to serve to its ex-employees and on their failure they, compelled them to come to the consumer fora, and having come to the Consumer Fora, the retirees got the benefits legally, acceptably, justifiably, in which there is no error of any kind, requiring our interference.
36. The rate of interest claimed is 18%. The District Forum, felt in the absence of detailed particulars, calculating interest, quantifying the same, may not be possible, and that is why in the first direction, suitable provision is made for the grant of interest, fixing the date, which has to be accepted. The rate of interest @18% is also recognized by the courts as referred above, and therefore we find no reason to reduce the rate of interest also. The payment of lumpsum, will not compensate the benefits deprived, by not paying the commuted value, and therefore the complainants who were deprived of the commuted value is entitled to claim interest, claim accepted, which is now confirmed.
37. The learned senior counsel urged only the jurisdiction before us, and they have not questioned about the cost awarded or the compensation awarded by the District Forum. Though the complainants have claimed each Rs.1 lakh by way of compensation, considering the position and the long drawn battle before the High Court, though it is for someother relief, as well as the uncompromised stand taken by the bank against its employee, who are entitled to be treated kindly, granted only a moderate sum of Rs.15000/- each, as compensation, which also requires to be confirmed.
38. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeals, and all the appeals deserves to be dismissed.
39. In the result, all the appeals in FA.No.685/2006 to FA.No.828/2006 are dismissed, with cost of Rs.1000/- in each appeal, to be paid by the appellants to the respondents. The common orders of the District Forum in COP.Nos.263/2001 to COP.Nos.406/2001 dt.29.9.2006, are confirmed.
PON GUNASEKARAN M. THANIKACHALAM
INDEX : YES / NO
Rsh/d/mtj/bank/common order in 144 cases