Date of Filing: 19.02.2011
Date of Order: 27.03.2012
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 27th DAY OF MARCH -2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. Ramachandra Rao, BSc., B.L, President
Smt. K.G. Shantala, Member
Sri. T. Nagaraj, Member
C.C. NO.35/2011
BEML EMPLOYEES CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY (Regd.),
Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet,
Kolar Gold Fields.
(Rep. by In-person) ….. COMPLAINANT
-V/s-
1. Krishnappa,
Government Higher Primary School,
Gitta Madamangala,
KGF Range
2. The Head Master,
Govt. Higher Primary School,
Gitta Madamangala,
KGF Range.
2. The Block Educational Officer,
KGF Range,
KGF.
(Notice served - Remained Absent) ….. OPPOSITE PARTIES
ORDER
BY SMT. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party No.1 to pay the amounts due from the 2nd opposite party or in the alternative direct the 2nd opposite party to effect the prompt deduction of the installments as undertaken, are necessary :-
2. The opposite party No.1 is working under the 2nd opposite party. The complainant advanced a loan of Rs.50,000/- on 05.06.2004 to the 1st opposite party to which the 2nd opposite party has undertaken that it will deduct the installments from the salary of the 1st opposite party and will pay, but as on date they are due Rs.1,09,348/- and it has not been paid. Hence this complaint is filed.
3. In this case though notice serviced to the opposite parties they remained absent throughout the proceedings. Hence, perused the records.
4. The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents. The arguments were heard.
5. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (A):- In the Negative
POINT (B):- As per the detailed order
for the following:-
REASONS
Point (A) & (B):-
7. The complaint is summarized supra. The allegation is that, the 1st opposite party being the employee of the 2nd opposite party had borrowed certain sum of money from the complainant agreeing to repay it in installments and the installments has been agreed to be recovered by the employer and it will be sent to the complainant and that has not been done, hence this complaint is filed. Here there is no relationship of Consumer and Trader exists between the parties. The complainant is a Society which has advanced loans to its members, accepts deposits, repayment of the loan amounts which is a commercial transaction as admitted by him. In a case between Techno Mukund Constructions v. Mercedes Benz India Ltd. And another reported in 2011 CTJ 387 (CP) (NCDRC) the Hon’ble National Commission has ruled thus:-
“The intention of Parliament in excluding persons purchasing goods for commercial purpose from the definition of the expression ‘Consumer’ is to impose a restriction that the special remedy before the Consumer Forums can be invoked only by ordinary consumers buying goods for their private and personal use and consumption and not business organizations buying goods for commercial purpose.”
This in all force applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. That is to say the Consumer Protection Act is applicable only to the ordinary consumers buying goods for their private and personal use and consumption and not business organizations buying goods for commercial purpose.
8. Here the complainant has not purchased any goods and services from any of the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 is the borrower of the loan and the other opposite parties have undertaken to repay the loan advanced to the 1st opposite party by recovering the installments from the salary of the 1st opposite party and has not recovered it and paid it to the complainant that’s all. The complainant is a commercial establishment lending money, earning profit and that is its commercial activities. Hence the complainant is not a purchaser of any goods nor it is a “Consumer”.
9. It was contended by the complainant that the complainant had taken deposits from its customers and they are suing for recovery of the amount and unless these persons like opposite parties have paid the amounts they cannot pay the amounts to their customers. If the complainant is entitled to they can institute appropriate action under the Co-operative Societies Act before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies or before the Civil Court and seek attachment of the salary of the borrower for which this order will not come in that way.
10. Even otherwise the borrower disputes regarding the availment of the loan or the amount due this has to be decided in a Civil Court or before the appropriate authority under the Co-operative Societies Act where proper pleadings has to be made proper evidence has to be taken it has to be cross-examined which cannot be done in a summery way. Hence the parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate court or authority for which this order will not come in that way. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as Under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 27th Day of MARCH 2012)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
