KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.319/09 JUDGMENT DATED 6.8.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER Kerala State Transport Workers’ Co op.Society Ltd. no.T.133, -- APPELLANT Thampanoor, Trivandrum reptd. by the Secretary. (By Adv.N.P.Prabhakaran) Vs. 1. District Transport Officer, KSRTC Kottayam Depot, Kottayam P.O. 2. P.K.Shaji -- RESPONDENTS Conductor, KSRTC Kottayam. (By Adv.J.V.Anoop) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 20.2.09 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC.18/07. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in demanding excess amount from the complainant. 2. Admittedly, the complainant is an employee of the first opposite party/KSRTC. He availed a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the second opposite party, Kerala State Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. The complainant agreed to remit the said amount by way of monthly installments at the rate of Rs.842/- per month by way of 50 installments. There is no dispute that the complainant remitted the installments regularly through the first opposite party by making deduction from his salary. There was also an agreement entered into between the parties and thereby the first opposite party agreed to deduct the amount due to the second opposite party by way of deduction from the salary of the complainant. 3. The definite case of the second opposite party was that a total of Rs.7752/- was due from the complainant. At the same time, the complainant had remitted the entire installments by way of deduction from the salary of the complainant. But, unfortunately the first opposite party failed to remit the aforesaid amount with the second opposite party. Thus, in effect the complainant was not liable to pay any amount to the second opposite as per the agreement entered into between the parties. It was the bounden duty of the first opposite party/KSRTC to remit the amount which was collected by the first opposite party from the salary of the complainant. Thus, the second opposite party is entitled to get the balance amount from the 1st opposite party. So, the Forum below is perfectly justified in holding that that the petitioner is not liable for any amount to be paid to the second opposite party. But the complainant is entitled to get the sum of Rs.4500/- which was collected from him by way of excess amount by the first opposite party. So, the first opposite party has been directed to refund the sum of Rs.4500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The second opposite party is legitimately entitled to get the balance amount due under the loan agreement from the first opposite party. So, the second opposite party will be at liberty to proceed against the first opposite party for realization of the said amount by approaching the proper Forum. The Forum below is also justified in awarding cost of Rs.1000/-. So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed with the aforesaid modification that the second opposite party can proceed against the first opposite party for realization of the amount due to them by approaching the concerned authority. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as indicated above. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER s/L | 
