JASBIR KAPOOR,PRESIDING MEMBER - (1.)THIS order will dispose of two appeals i.e. First Appeal No. 707 of 2003 Faqir Chand v. The Bank Manager, Canara Bank & Anr., and First Appeal No. 726 of 2003 Officer Incharge, Garrison Engineer v. Faqir Chand & Anr., as the same are preferred against the same impugned order dated 22.4.2003 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short 'the District Forum'). The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No. 726 of 2003' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
(2.)BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was employed with the appellant firm on the post of Chowkidar. He retired from the said post on 31.12.2001. Appellant firm had sent pension and gratuity orders/papers vide letter dated 20.12.2001 to respondent No. 2. These papers were sent through registered post dated 24.12.2001 to respondent No. 2. It was pleaded by respondent No. 1 that with respondent No. 2 his Account No. was 7240 and Pension -cum -Gratuity Account No. was 1199457. The allegation of respondent No. 1 was that despite receiving the full details and papers it had not acted upon. Respondent No. 1 confirmed through postal department certificate dated 11.6.2002 that the said documents were delivered to respondent No. 2 on 24.12.2001. It was pleaded by respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 had misplaced the abovesaid documents i.e. his pension and gratuity papers/orders and suffered huge loss. This act was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 and prayed that he may be granted Rs. 54,395 along with 18% p.a. interest, Rs. 50,000 as compensation on account of inconvenience suffered by him and Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses. It was further prayed that his future pension may be released at Canara Bank, Sansarpur Branch, Jalandhar Cantt.
(3.)RESPONDENT No. 2 filed its reply and admitted that letter was received. It was pleaded that this letter was only a formal intimation and no document was attached with the same. The stand of respondent No. 2 was that there was no need to the appellant to send these papers to him as its branch was not competent to deal in disbursing pension. It was pleaded that there was no arrangement or contract for service nor any legal duty was cast on it or any duty was ever foisted on it. It was also denied that any documents were misplaced by it as alleged by respondent No. 1. It was further denied that any amount was received by it and the same was retained by it without the consent of respondent No. 1 or the same was misappropriating by it, as such, there was no deficiency on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Appellant also replied and admitted that respondent No. 1 was retired as Chowkidar from its firm. It was pleaded that all the documents required for pension and other benefits were correctly dispatched to respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 24.12.2001 and the same was received by respondent No. 2. It was further pleaded that revised PPO was also sent to respondent No. 2. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency on its part and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.