IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 23rd day of December, 2011
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.315/2011
between
Complainant :- | Opposite parties:- |
Sri. K. Muraleedharan S/o Kesavan, Irupathilchira Pulangadi P.O, Champakulam, Alappuzha-688509 (Adv.Satheesh Chandra, Alappuzha) | 1. Sri. Vidhya Ajay, Medical officer In Charge, P.H.C, Kurathikadu, Mavelikara- 69010 X (Adv. K. Sureshkumar , Kurathikadu) 2.` Branch Manager, State Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha ` ` Branch. 3.` District Medical Officer, Alappuzha (Adv. Elizabath George, Alappuzha.) |
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant in precise is a follows:- The complainant availed a loan amount of Rs. 100000/- ( Rupees One Lakh only) from the 2nd opposite party. Three persons stood as sureties for the said loan. The complainant caused default in the repayment. With the result, on 4th July 2011 an amount of Rs. 3000/-( Rupees Three thousand only ) had been recovered by the 1st opposite party from the salary of the sureties, P.S.Babu, the Nursing Assistant. Meanwhile, on 8th July 2011 the complainant managed to obtain a stay over the recovery of the said defaulted amount. The factum of stay was duly intimated to the opposite parties. The complainant required the 1st opposite party to end the recovery proceedings and to give him back the recovered amount. Paying little heed to the said demand, the 1st opposite party held on the amount with her and on 5th August 2011 forwarded the same to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant had to clear up the loan on paying bigger amount at the time of the final settlement. The complainant sustained huge loss resultantly due to the negligence of the opposite parties. The complainant, feeling aggrieved on this, approached this Forum for compensation and relief
2. On serving notice the opposite parties turned up and filed versions. The 1st opposite party contends that the complainant is not a consumer of the 1st opposite party. He is a total stranger to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party effected recovery of the salary of P.S.Babu absolutely in line with the order of the 3rd opposite party, her superior office. The 1st opposite party never did anything unauthorisedly as to the said recovery of salary. The other contentions put forth by the complainant as to his transaction with the bank and the other surrounding circumstances are all unfamiliar to the 1st opposite party. The complaint is frivolous and baseless. The same is to be dismissed with cost to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party fervently contends. The 2nd opposite party contends that the recovery was effected consequent to the default caused in the repayment of the loan amount. Recovery was carried out prior to the order of stay form the Registrar. Subsequent to the final settlement of the said loan by the complainant, the recovered amount was paid back to him. That apart, the complainant was provided with all kinds of benefits at the time of the clearing up of the debt. The complaint is vexatious. The same is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite parties, the 2nd opposite party forcefully contends.
3. During the course of the proceedings, the 1st opposite party filed a petition bearing IA IA.No.249/201lchallenging the maintainability of the instant case. The contention of the 1st opposite party is that, the complainant is not a consumer to the first opposite party in any perspective. The complainant is a total stranger to her and she had no any knowledge or nexus with whatsoever allegations put forth in the complaint. The other opposite parties also have no direct link or relation with the alleged factum of dispute. We, bearing in mind the contentions of the opposite parties, went meticulously through the materials available on record. We are of the strong view that the complaint is baseless. The alleged dispute with regard to the recovery of the salary of one of the sureties of the complainant will not invite the jurisdiction of this Forum. Going by the four corners of the complaint and other relevant materials we hold that service deficiency is conspicuously absent in the instant case. Needless to say the complaint must fail.
4. In view of the discussions hereinabove, the above IA is allowed on finding the
complaint is not maintainable. The complaint stands dismissed
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 23rd day of December 2011.
Sd/- Sri.Jimmy Korah
Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by:-
