Karnataka

Kolar

CC/09/50

N.Shankar Singh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Executive Officer, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.R.Nagesh

01 Dec 2009

ORDER


THE DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
No.419, Ist Floor,. H.N. Gowda Building, M.B.Road, Kolar-563101
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/50

N.Shankar Singh,
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Chief Executive Officer,
The Commissioner,
The Dist. Social Welfare Officer,
The Managing Director,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

CC Filed on 17.07.2009 Disposed on 14.12.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 14th day of December 2009 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 50/2009 Between: Mr. N. Shankar Singh, The Secretary, Sri. Jayaramachandra Education Society, Muthyalpet, Mulbagal – 563 131. Kolar District. (By Advocate Sri. Sama Rangappa & others) V/S 1. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Chikkaballapur Road, Kolar, Kolar District. 2. The District Social Welfare Officer, Social Welfare Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan, Kolar. 3. The Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Bangalore – 1. ….Complainant 4. The Managing Director, Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society, No. 14/3, II Floor Annexe, CFC Building, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore – 1. ….Opposite Parties ORDERS This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards refund of EMD with interest and costs and for compensation. 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows: That in pursuance of an agreement entered between complainant and OP No.1 and 2 for supply of teaching and non-teaching staff to Moraraji Desai Residential Schools, the complainant deposited EMD of Rs.1,50,000/- with OP.2 which was returnable after the term of contract. The complainant supplied teaching and non-teaching staff to the said schools for certain consideration during the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and after expiry of term of contract he requested for return of EMD on 23.09.2008 by lodging a petition but the OPs did not refund it on insufficient grounds. 3. The OPs sent their versions. OP.4 stated that he was not necessary a party and he had not received EMD amount and the contract was between OP No.1 to 3 and the complainant. Therefore he prayed for dismissal of complaint against him. OP.2 sent his version admitting the correctness of the claim of complainant. But stated that the then in-charge District Social Welfare Officer by name Sri. Panduranga committed misappropriation of the EMD amount of Rs.1,50,000/- received from complainant and kept in a Bank account. Therefore OP.2 wrote letter to OP.1 requesting to arrange for payment of EMD amount to complainant. OP.3 appears to be the Head of the Department of OP.2. OP.1 is entrusted with the running of Moraraji Desai Residential Schools and his getting grants for it from 2005. 4. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of his case. The OPs did not file any affidavit. We heard the complainant and perused the records. 5. It is not in dispute that the complainant is entitled to return of EMD of Rs.1,50,000/- subsequent to the term of agreement and there was a request by complainant on 23.09.2008 for return of EMD. Because the said EMD amount kept in a Bank account was misappropriated by the then in-charge District Social Welfare Officer the amount could not be repaid to complainant. If somebody has misappropriated the amount, the complainant cannot be asked to wait till the action against the said person is taken and till the recovery of that amount from him. The OP No.1 to 3 are bound to return the EMD amount when it becomes due and it is their look out how to get the grant from Government in such circumstance. They can move such authority for special grant to make the payment to complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we think the interest may be awarded at 5% p.a. on Rs.1,50,000/- from 23.09.2008 and no other separate compensation is required to be granted. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP No.1 to 3 shall pay Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to complainant with interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the said amount from 23.09.2008 till the date of realization, within 6 weeks from the date of this order. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 14th day of December 2009. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT