Skip to main content

NCDRC: 'Pension Is For Survival Which Cannot Be Attached'

In REVISION PETITION NO. 2840 OF 2018, STATE BANK OF INDIA vs MANIKA SARKAR, Respondent/Complainant was receiving pension in her Savings Bank Account, jointly held with her son, an employee of the Petitioner Bank. The Bank Authority froze the Respondent’s Account, since her son was charged with misappropriation of money. It was stated that due to the said action of the Petitioners, transactions in respect of the Pension Account became barred, subjecting the family pensioner to utter deprivation from enjoying her pension, which was her sole source of sustenance. The complaint filed before the District Forum was opposed by the Bank stating that the complainant was not a consumer and the account in question was not a pension account. The District Forum accepted the complaint stating that pension is meant for survival of the pension holder, which cannot be attached or withheld by any one.

The petitioners appealed before the state forum which upheld the decision of the District forum. Finally on appeal, the NCDRC also agreed with the lower forums and stated that the Respondent was a customer of the Petitioner as she was having a joint account in the Petitioner’s Bank, where her pension was regularly deposited.The Petitioner was a service provider.The Petitioner Bank froze her account and wrongly denied her access to her pension, which amounted to deficiency in service.She, thus, filed a consumer complaint in the consumer fora.It is clear from the evidence available on record as well from the Orders of the lower Fora, that no fault was committed by the Respondent.She
cannot be made suffer, only due to the reason that she was having a Joint Account with her son, who had allegedly committed an offence. The Petitioner Bank had no reason to withhold Pension.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more