BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KADAPA YSR DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Friday, 11th July 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 50/ 2013
G.N. Reddy, S/o Late Rami Reddy, Retd.,
APSRTC Employee, E 107109, D.No. 2/1053,
Nehru Nagar, Kadapa City. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Depot Manager, Upstairs, APSRTC Bus station,
Near Dist. Court, Near Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa City.
2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa, Near Dist. Court,
Maruthi nagar, Kadapa City – 516 001. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 03-7-2014 in the presence of Sri Y.V. Seshaiah, Advocate for complainant and Sri A. Rajasekhar, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- It is submitted that the petitioner has been employed in APSRTC and his staff No. is E 107109 and complainant in this case and availed loan for an amount of Rs. 1,05,540/- for purchase of ready built house from you organization vide order No. E5/354 (109) 1990 EDC dt. 22-7-2000 of personal officer, APSRTC, Kadapa zone and the said HBA shall be recovered in 70 installments @ Rs. 1500/- p.m and Rs. 540/- in 71st installment from his salary of and after recovery of principal amount the interest to be calculated @ 12% p.a. on reduced balances and provisionally arrived to recover it Rs. 1076/- p.m in 35 equal installments. Accordingly the principal amount Rs. 1,05,540/- was recovered from complainant salaries from August 2000 to January 2007 and after recovery was stopped towards interest at Rajampet depot and at Kadapa Depot’s though the complainant approached at D.M’s offices and requested the concerned official to effect recovery of HBA interest but recovery is not effected and the complainant was retired on 30-6-2009 and all his superannuation benefits were paid without any recovery of HBA interest from it, and he was also issued with medical cum 50% travel concession identity card initially, subsequently6 renewed it for two years from 16-2-2012 to 15-2-2014 and its card No. 85525.
3. It is further submits that the complainant has asked the R1 on 13-6-2012 and on 15-4-2013 to return his original house title deeds, but the R1 has not returned it so far but informed orally that some amount is due towards HBA then the complainant has given an application to the R1 on 6-5-2013 under RTI Act 2005 to inform the HBA recovery particulars and there upon R1 has furnished the HBA interest calculation sheet dt. 28-1-2012 stating that the complainant is due for an amount of Rs. 83,353/- towards HBA interest and penal interest calculated from February 2007 to August 2012 i.e. Rs. 43,786/- towards HBA regular interest + Rs. 6,127/- towards penal interest on default of principal amount + Rs. 33,400/- to words penal interest as certified by the accounts officer, APSRTC Kadapa region on 28-1-22012 i.e. informed on 28-5-2013 to the complainant after lapse of nearly 4 years and calculated the HBA interest after his retirement date i.e. after retirement, of 3 years 6 months of complainant that too after reminding the respondent authorities. The R1 has advised my client on 28-5-2013 to pay Rs. 83,353/- towards house building advance as on 4-10-2012. As such the notice issued to the complainant by R1 on 28-5-2013 is a belated one improper and calculated on unfair means and contrary to labour laws because he is a workmen.
4. Further it is to inform that at present the complaint is an un-employee and getting an amount of Rs. 1,433/- towards his pension which is even not sufficient for his family bread and butter and not in a position to pay such proposed huge amount as all his settlement amount which were taken in the year 2009 were incurred for his family needs.
5. The cause of action arose due to non-recovery of HBA interest at Ramapet depot and at Kadapa depot by the R1 while the complainant was in service though he has remained the concerned officials at the time of that places. As such complainant is not responsible for non-recovery of HBA interest. As such the complainant has issued a legal notice on 7-6-2013 to the respondents to return his original house title deeds of complainant by waiving the HBA interest and penal interest as it was noticed by the R12, after retirement date and it became an irrecoverable amount and there is no scope to recover it from salaries of complainant and also calculated the interest beyond the date of the retirement of complainant, which is contrary to labour laws as he is workman that to after payment of all his settlement amounts which were incurred for his family needs. For the legal notice the R1 has given a reply through his letter dt. 14-6-2013 by furnishing the rules and regulations of the house building advance and advised the complainant to attend the R1 office and clear the entire interest amount accrued together with penal interest and get house title deeds.
6. It is therefore, prays that this Hon’ble court may (a) to direct the respondents to return the original title deeds of the complainant, (b) also directs the respondents to pay Rs. 1000/- towards expenses in this case incurred by the complainant and also direct the respondents to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant and other reliefs as deems fit by the Hon’ble court in the interest of justice.
7. The counter filed by O.P.1 and the same is adopted by O.P.1. The complaint is unjust and not maintainable in law or on facts of the case.
8. The complainant is put to strict proof of all allegations made in the complaint which are not expressly admitted herein.
9. The allegations that the complainant was employed in APSRTC and has availed loan from the corporation for the purchase of ready built house and the loan was sanctioned on 22-7-2000 and he was paid an amount of Rs. 1,05,540/- which is repayable in first 70 installments @ Rs. 1500/- per month and from 71 installment an amount of Rs. 540/- per month has to be paid and the rate of interest is 12% p.a on reduced balances and in case of default penal interest 24 percent p.a. will be recovered. But the interest which was to be recovered in 35 monthly installments after completion of recovery of principal was not effected at Rajampet is also correct but it is false to say that the complainant approached this respondent’s office and requested the official to recover the HBA interest but recovery is not effected is false. The complainant never approached this office and never requested to receive the interest and as per the terns and conditions of sanction order “if the recovery is not effected due to any reason, the employee should bring to to the notice of drawing officer and the amount not recovered shall be paid in cash immediately to the corporation and there is no record to show that complainant has brought the fact of non- recovery of interest or otherwise in this respondent’s office and the complainant tried to pay the same in cash. The complainant in order to evade payment has made this bald allegation only to have unlawful gain. Further I is submitted that the complainant retired on 30-6-2009 and he received terminal benefits of Rs. 6,39,535/- and he ought to have paid the amounts due to the corporation and taken the balance amount but he did not do so only with an unlawful intention of evading payment to corporation. The complainant issued legal notice to the R1 and the office of R1 gave reply on 14-6-2013 duly furnishing the provisions of HLA sanction order and also stating responsibility lies on him to pay the entire loan with interest. He has to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- the R1 has given clear reply stating that unless the complainant pays the dues the documents will not be returned further the allegations that the corporation ought to have recovered from the amount paid to him towards retirement benefits is false. Since the amount cannot be deducted out of terminal benefits paid to an employee and the employee has to pay the same if he is due any amounts to the corporation. Knowing fully of this fact the complainant took the amount and also the other benefits from the corporation and now asking for waving of the amount due and to return the documents. Unless and until the complainant pays the entire amount due to the corporation the documents cannot be returned. The allegations that the complainant is workmen and his dues cannot be recovered after the retirement is false and invented for the purpose of evading payment. Normally when a person takes loan he has to repay the same with interest otherwise the documents pledged as security cannot be given back.
10. It is therefore, prayed that his Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against the opposite parties in the interest of justice.
11. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by the complainant?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent?
iii. To what relief?
12. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A11 were marked.
13. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is very clear from Ex. A1 & A2 that the complainant had availed House Building loan on 22-7-2000 for Rs. 1,05,540/-. Ex. A3 shows that the complainant had paid 78 regular installments. Ex. A4 is the retirement notification of the complainant. The corporation has clearly mentioned 70 installments Rs. 1500/- p.m and 71st installment starts from Rs. 540/- with rate of interest 12 percent p.a. and if any default the penal interest 24 percent p.a. will be recovered from the complainant. Likewise the installments has to be completed in 35 monthly installments. As per Ex. A3 the complainant had paid total 78 installments only. The complainant will have awareness of his pending loan amount installments. When the corporation was very clear with its rules and regulations, while granting sanctioning the loan facility. The complainant should know the rules and regulations of the corporation. While availing loan at the time of retirement the complainant should inform the authorities about his dues regarding his house loan. But the complainant did not do so. It is not an inexcusable mistake. Without discharging his duties properly the complainant had requested in letter dt. 13-6-2012, 15-4-2013 to the R1 that his original documents were not returned to him. How the complainant questions the R1 & R2 without fulfilling his duty of repaying the loan amount. It clearly shows that the complainant had approached in illegal way and the complainant issued Ex. A5 to gain illegal benefit. Ex. A6 is the identity cum free 50% travel concession card, does not support the case of the complainant. In Ex. A7, O.P.1 had given clear intimation that the complainant was due an amount of Rs. 83,353/- towards interest on house building advances as on 4-10-2012. Ex. A8 & A9 does not support the case of the complainant. Ex. A10 also very clear that the complainant was due to the R1 & R2. The R1 and R2 are the officials working under APSRTC, which is the corporation and the R1 and R2 will not have any personal grudges or enemy with the complainant in returning his original documents, if he pays full loan amount perfectly. In this case here it is the bounded duty of the complainant to inform R1 & R2 about his dues to the corporation, which he enjoyed while he was in service. While taking retirement from the corporation it is bounded duty of the complainant to inform them about his dues. But here the complainant did not do so. He failed to discharge his duties. He had availed the loan and he had purchased the house. But he failed to pay the loan amount to the corporation. So it clearly proves that the complainant had not approached this Hon’ble forum with clean hands. Only to get unlawful gain the complainant approached this Hon’ble forum against the respondents. Hence, the complaint is not eligible for any compensation as prayed by him. At the same time there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the respondents 1 & 2. If the complainant pays total remaining balance amount to the corporation, the corporation is ready to return his documents and the same is mentioned in the counter of R2.
14. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 11th July 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of sanction memorandum of House Building Advance No. E5/SRBS/354(64)1995 EDC, dt. 11-10-1995 of Sr. Manager (P), Kadapa zone.
Ex. A2 P/c office order No. E5/354(109)1999 EDC, dt. 22-7-2000 of Personal officer, Kadapa zone.
Ex. A3 P/c of the HBA Principal recover amount from August, 2000 to January 2007 of the complainant and statement showing interest calculation from February 2007 to August 2012 computed and certified by the account officer, APSRTC, Kadapa Region 28-12-2012.
Ex. A4 Retirement Notification No. P/693/(5)2009, dt. 1-1-2009 of the R1 of the complainant.
Ex. A5 Request letters dt. 13-6-2012 & 15-4-2013 o f the complainant.
Ex. A6 Identity cum free 50% travel concession card No. 85525 valid upto
15-2-2014.
Ex. A7 Letter dt. 6-5-2013 issued to the R1 udner RTI Act.
Ex. A8 Reply letters dt. 28-5-2013 & 31-5-2013 of R1.
Ex. A9 Legal notice dt. 7-6-2013 issued to the respondents.
Ex. A10 Reply letter dt. 14-6-2013 of R1.
Ex. A11 P/c of the House title sale deed t. 27-11-1995 of the complainant.
Exhibits marked for Respondents: - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1. Sri Y.V. Seshaiah, Advocate for complainant.
2. Sri A. Rajasekhar, Advocate for respondents.
B.V.P.
