Date of Filing :17.04.2018

Date of Disposal :14.06.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:14.06.2024

PRESENT

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL No.573/2018

The President

KPTCL

Vijayapura Division Employees

Co-Op Society Ltd.,

Vijayapur-586 101

(By Mr.B.Shrikanth B, Advocate)                                             Appellant

-Versus-

Sri Basappa

S/o Mr Kallappa Biradar

Aged about 62 yars

Occ: Retired HESCOM Employee

Residing at K.K.Colony

Vijayapur-586 101                                                            Respondent
                            

-:ORDER:-

Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 15.02.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.55/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vijayapur (for short, the District Forum).

2.       The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as the rank assigned to them by the District Commission.

3.       The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal and Appeal papers.

4.       The Complainant has raised a Consumer Complaint to direct the OP to pay Rs.6,185/- of RD matured amount along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of maturity till realisation and sought for compensation. The OP has contested the complaint, denying the allegations made in the complaint, contended that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and OP.  In view of rival contentions of the respective parties, the District Forum held, that there exist a relationship of consumer and service provider and found OP has rendered deficiency in service thereby directed the OP to pay Rs.6,185/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 10.06.2016 and directed the OP to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, Rs.1,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost which is assailed in this Appeal.

5.       It is not in dispute that the complainant was an employee of OP and he retired from the service as Typist.  After retirement, he has raised this complaint against OP. It is found from enquiry, Complainant has invested Rs.1,000/- per month and after 5 years, while approached OP2 to pay matured amount of Rs.80,000/- but, had paid only Rs.76,815/-.  In other words, not paid Rs.6,185/-, for which, he sought direction against OP.  The District Forum found OP is liable to pay Rs.83,000/-.  In such circumstances, directed the OP to pay Rs.6,185/-, since OP has already paid Rs.76,815/-. In such circumstances, Commission did not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.  Accordingly, proceed to dismiss the Appeal with no order as to costs.

6.       Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.

7.       Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned.

                Lady Member                    Judicial Member

*s