View 2959 Cases Against Haryana
Amarjeet Singh filed a consumer case on 20 Sep 2022 against General Manager, Haryana Roadways in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/520/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 21 Sep 2022.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.
Complaint No. 520 of 2022
Date of instt.05.09.2022
Date of Decision 20.09.2022
Amarjeet Singh (aged 58 years) son of Shri Mahinder Singh, resident of House no.746, Gali no.1, Shiv Colony, Karnal.
…….Complainant.
Versus
General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal Depot Karnal.
…..Opposite Party.
Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Before Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.
Sh. Vineet Kaushik…..Member
Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member
Present: Shri Sudhakar Mittal, counsel for the complainant.
(Jaswant Singh President)
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP) on the averments that complainant had applied for a departmental loan of Rs.45000/- from the OP in order to purchase a motor bike for his personal use. The said loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed by the OP on 27.03.2012, to be deducted from the salary of complainant from the month of April, 2012 onwards. On 31.12.2021, complainant attained superannuation from the office of OP as driver but his service benefits were not released by the OP immediately and the same were kept in abeyance for long. The complainant approached the OP several times for releasing of his pensionary benefits but they kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and finally asked the complainant to deposit sum of Rs.1,29,022/- against the loan amount of Rs.45,000/- alongwith interest as also the penal interest. The complainant requested the OP that loan amount was borrowed in the year 2012 and that was to be deducted from the salary of the complainant without any sort of instruction from his side. The complainant remained employed in the office of OP and never raised any hindrance in deduction of the loan amount from his salary. Complainant told the OP that at this juncture of retirement he is facing great financial hardship due to his family circumstances and not in position to pay the entire amount in one slot. But OP did not bother to the genuine request of complainant and forced him to deposit the amount of Rs.1,29,022/-. The complainant deposited this amount on 11.04.2022. Even after deposition of the entire demanded amount by the complainant, the pensionary benefits of the complainant were released in the month of June, 2022 only i.e. after delay of more than five months after the retirement. The OP has illegally and wrongly forced the complainant to deposit the interest and penal interest for the period which was delayed only due to the sole negligence on the part of the OP. The recovery of Rs.1,29,022/- in one slot by charging interest and penal interest for delayed period and non-release of pensionary benefits and pension to the complainant well within time amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to all these acts of the OPs complainant has suffered mental pain, torture, agony and harassment and financial losses. Hence this complaint.
2. Learned counsel for complainant has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Versus Shiv Kumar Joshi in civil appeal no.411 of 1997, decided on 14.12.1999 and Executive Engineer P.W.D. Suratgarh and others Versus Gopal Dass and Anr. in appeal no.108 of 1993, decided on 21.10.1994 of Hon’ble State Commission, Rajasthan.
3. Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.
4. Record perused.
5. As per the version of the complainant he had taken a loan for purchasing the motorcycle from the OP in the year 2012. On 31.12.2021 when he attained superannuation from the office of OP as a driver and asked the OP to release his pensionary benefit and on this OP asked the complainant to deposit sum of Rs.1,29,022/- against the loan amount of Rs.45,000/- alongwith interest as also the penal interest. The entire said amount had been cleared by the OP on 11.04.2022.
6. There is nothing on the file to prove that complainant had taken the loan and had cleared the same as alleged by him. Furthermore, it was the duty of the complainant to check the account statement as to whether the OP had deducted the amount from his salary account but complainant remained ignorant about the deduction for such a long period of time. Ignorance of law is of no excuse. The alleged loan in question was taken by the complainant in the year 2012 and present complaint has been filed on 05.09.2022. There is also nothing on file that when the said loan amount has been cleared as alleged by the complainant. If the complainant has cleared all the loan amounts he would have placed on file copy of account statement but complainant has failed to do so. Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated:20.09.2022.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Karnal.
(Vineet Kaushik) (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.