ORDER
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
The complainant is serving as a constable in Delhi Police. In December 1998, while he was posted in Main Line Security, Vinay Marg, Delhi, he had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- under the Delhi Police Welfare Scheme. The loan was provided by Punjab and Sindh Bank vide loan account 1-58. The loan was to be repaid in 60 EMIs of Rs. 1200/- beginning from January 1999. The loan installments were to be deducted from the salary of the complainant and was to be fully repaid by December 2003. It is alleged by the complainant that the EMIs of the loan were continuously deducted from his salary with effect from 1st January,1999 by OP3 and sent to OP2till August 2004 when he requested OP3 to stop making any further deduction as the loan stood repaid in December 2003. The complainant has further alleged that in January 2002 , instead of Rs. 1200/- an amount of Rs 2400/- was deducted from his salary and till August 2004 an additional amount of Rs 10800/- had been deducted from his salary. He had called upon the OPs to refund the said amount of Rs 10800/- along with interest but to no result. Rather from July 2007 onwards, OP3 started deducting an amount of Rs. 2163/- from his salary. This continued till May 2008. The complainant has alleged that an additional sum of Rs 21363/- had been deducted from its salary by OP3 and paid to OP Nos 1 and 2. He had served legal notice upon the OPs but to no result. Hence, the complaint.
The complaint has been contested by OPs. In its written statement filed by OP1 and OP2. A preliminary objection has been taken which is reproduced as under:
- That the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous. In this connection it is submitted that the complainant has not come before this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Court. It may be mentioned that towards repayment of the loan, the complainant started paying the monthly installments is of Rs. 1200/ which was to be deducted from the slary of the complainant directly. However, in between the remittance were stopped as a result of which overdue interest was being charged to the complainant. Thus, the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
OPs have contested the complaint on merits and have admitted that the complainant had availed of a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from it under the Delhi Police Welfare Scheme. Paras 4 , 5 and 6 of the reply on merits of the written statement are also relevant and are being reproduced:
4.That in reply to para 4 it is correct that the complainant started paying the monthly installments of Rs 1200/- since January 1999. However, it is denied that the said installments were being paid continuously by the complainant. However, in between the remittance were stopped by the complainant as a result of which overdue interest was being charged to the account of the complainant which has resulted in pendency of installments. No amount in excess of the amount due to the respondents has been deducted by the respondent from the employer/ respondent no. 3 of the complainant. The deduction if any made by the respondent no. 3, of the complainant have not been passed on the respondent no. 1 and 2 and therefore, the amount is being shown due.
5. That the contents of para 5 of the complaint are wrong and denied. It is denied that relying respondents had been deducting salary. It may be mentioned that as stated above, since the amount was to be deducted by the employer of the complainant and since the same was not being deducted., the overdue was charged to the account and the amount accordingly is being deducted by the employer of the complainant. Rest of the contents are wrong and denied. It is denied that regularly the EMI of Rs. 1200 were deducted. The detailed submissions in this respect have already been made herein above.
6. That the contents of para 6 of the complaint are correct to the extent that complainant had intimated respondent no. 3 about the pendency of the amount due to the respondents no. 1 and 2. It is absolutely denied that apart from the same. A sum of Rs. 21,363/- has been deducted from the salary of the complainant was paid to the defendant. The amount as recovered strictly as per the banking norms. The amount as received by the complainant from resondents no. 1 and 2 was to be repaid with interest and thus, no amount in addition to the amount due the bank was received. It is absolutely denied that till July 1999 the details of the amount have not been supplied to the complainant. The complainant as and requested, the statement have been supplied to the complainant. Rest of the contents are wrong and denied.
OPs 1 and 2 have denied that they were liable to refund a sum of Rs. 21,363/- along with interest as claimed in the complaint. It has denied any deficiency in service and has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
A separate written statement has been filed by OP3. It has taken preliminary objections that the complaint against it is not maintainable as it was not responsible for the loan of the complainant. Under the head brief facts , OP3 has stated as under:
The facts of the case are that Punjab and Sind Bank, Vasant Vihar, Delhi had given a lon of Rs. 50000/- on 22.12.1998 to Const. Mukesh Kumar No. 998/Sec (now 11493/DAP) here in after alled the complainant while he was posted in Security unit to be recovfered in 60 monthly installment @ Rs 1200 p.m. He should have informed the department immediately on receipt of the loan for making the recovery of laon but he did not do so. Hence, his recover could not be effected from the month of January 1999 due to which the interest amount went on higher side. The recovery of laon was started from his salary on installment basis from the month of May 1999 and the same was deposited in the Punjab and Sind Bank, Bikrikar Bhaawan, New Delhi (Nodal Branch) in the month of June 1999 for onward deposition in Vasant Vihar Branch of Punjab and Sind Bank. Later on , the complainant was transferred from Security to North-East Distt. And further transferred to South West Distt. And Bn. Dap. Thus, the salary of the complainant was drawn by serious Heads of Offices during the period in which loan was covered. His 60 EMIs were recovered up to June 2004 while he was posted in Xth Bt. DAP and the same were deposited in Punjab and Sind Bank and recovery of loan was stopped. Later on receipt of letter dated 13.3.2007 from Punjab and Sind Bank (Coy at annexure C) showing the outstanding loan against the complainant and others, the PHQ vide memo no. 3492-35627/Acct/ OHQ/Loan dated 8.5.2007 (Annexure C) sent a list of such police personnel to the concerned Distt./ Units and also directed that recovery of the outstanding loans may be made and in case , recovery of loan has already been made, then the recovery may be reconciled and a “No Dues Certificate” may be obtained from Punjab and Sind Bank.
In the above said list an amount of Rs. 17959./- was shown outstanding against the complainant by Punjab and Sind Bank to be recovered @ Rs 1200/- p.m. . Accordingly, the recovery of loan was again started @ Rs 1200/- p.m. by DCP/10tgh Bn. DAO from the month of June 2007 and 10 installments were recovered till March 2008 from the salary of the complainant. On having been aggrieved by the Punjab and Sind Bank, the complainant issued a legal notice to Punjab & Sind Bank and Police Hdqrs. On receipt of the said letter , the recovery of the loan was stopped from the month of April 2008. When the issue regarding reconciling the recoveries of loan made by various
Dist/ Units was under process, the complainant filed this suit in DCDRF, ISBT Kashmere Gate , Delhi.
On merits OP3 has also admitted that the complainant had availed of a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from OP1 and OP2 which was payable in 60 EMIs of Rs. 1200/- each. It has claimed that the complainant did not inform the department about the loan as a result of which the recovery of EMIs could not be effected with effect from January 1999. It has claimed that the recovery of the EMIs were actually started from the month of May 1999 and were already completed in the month of June 2004. The EMIs were stopped in the month of July 2004. It has also stated that EMIs @ 1200/ were again deducted from Salary of the complainant w.e.f. June 2007 on receipt of a request from OPs 1 and 2 vide letter dated 12.3.2007. the EMIs were stopped from the month of April 2008 on receipt of a legal notice from the complainant whereafter the issue regarding reconciliation was initiated. It is stated that 12 EMIs @ Rs 1200/- were deducted from June 2007 to 21.3.2008. it has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
Ld. Counsel for OP -3 has contended that the complainant is not a consumer qua it and therefore, the present complaint against it is not maintainable. We are, however, do not agree with this contention of OP – 3. In its W.S., OP -3 did not raise any objection to the effect that the complainant was not a consumer. It had only claimed that the complaint against it was not maintainable as it was not responsible for maintaining the loan account of the complainant. OP – 3 has not placed on record any documents/agreement vide which the loan was disbursed by OP – 1/OP – 2 and was to be recovered by OP – 3 from the salary of the complainant. It was obligatory on the part of the OPs to have placed on record the tripartite agreement vide which this arrangement was entered into between the parties. Therefore, in the absence of such an agreement, it appears to us that by agreeing to deduct the EMI’s from the salary of the complainant, OP – 3 had agreed to render service to the complainant. The complainant would therefore, qualify as a consumer of OP – 3. We therefore, reject the contention of the Ld. Counsel of OP – 3 as raised by him.
Coming to the facts of this case, it may be stated that the paities have admitted that the complainant had availed of a loan of Rs.50000/- under the Delhi Police Welfare Scheme. It is also admitted that the loan was to be re-paid in 60 EMI’s of Rs.1200/- each. The complainant has alleged that a sum of Rs.21363/- had been deducted in excess from his salary by OP – 3. As per the complainant, the deduction of the EMI’s had started w.e.f. January, 1999 and were carried out till August, 2014. The deduction was again started in July, 2007 and was stopped in March, 2008 when he has served a legal notice on the OPs.
The stand of the OP s with regard to the deduction made from the salary of the complainant is not consistent and is rather way wards.
As per OP – 3 who was making deductions from the salary of the complainant, the deductions started w.e.f. May, 1999 rather than w.e.f. January, 1999. As per OP – 3 60 EMI’s were deducted from the salary of the complainant by July, 2004 but on receipt of a letter dated 12.3.2007, it had recovered 10 more installments of Rs.1200/- each from July, 2007 to March, 2008. Therefore as per the stand by OP – 3 taken in the written statement, it had deducted a sum of Rs.72000/- ( being the amount of 60 EMI’s) and Rs.12000/- ( being the amount of 10 instalments deducted in 2007-2008) totaling to Rs.84000/- in all. It is also the stand of OP – 3 that on receipt of the legal notice from the complainant , further deductions were stopped and the process of reconciliation of the recoveries made towards repayment of the loan was undertaken.
Let us now consider the stand of OP -1/OP – 2 with regard to the deductions made from the salary of the complainant. OP -1 and OP -2 have taken a stand that the complainant had started paying monthly instalments of Rs.1200/- each w.e.f. January, 1999. OP2/OP3 have, however ,claimed that the instalments were not deducted regularly as a result of which overdue interest was levied. Their further stand is that all deductions made from the salary of the complainant by OP – 3 were not passed on to them.
The record further shows that no reconciliation was carried out amongst the OPs with regard to the amounts actually deducted from the salary of the complainant by OP – 3 and the amounts passed on to OP – 3. As recently as on 14.5.2015, OP – 3 wrote a letter to OP – 1 and OP – 2 which inter-alia reads as under: -
I am directed to state that Ct. Mukesh Kuamr No. 998/Sec. (PIS No. 28890719 ) had taken loan of Rs.50,000 from your bank. The recovery of this loan was made from the salary of above Ct. during the period from 1.12.98 to 31.3.2008 (Detail enclosed). Const. has filed a C.C. No. 386/08 for excess recovery from his pay. The next date of hearing is fixed from 25.5.2015 in the court of consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Court ISBT, Kashmere Gate.
It is therefore, requested that recovery statement in r/o Ct. Mukesh Kumar No 998/Sec. may be reconciled from your record and returned to this office within week. So that the compliance of the direction of Hon’ble Court could be made.
In response to this a letter was received from OP – 1 and OP – 2 which inter-alia reads as under:-
With reference your above letter dated we inform you that the above named employee has availed the loan from at B/o Vasant Vihar, New Delhi so we refer the matter to concerned branch. The branch requested for sufficient time to locate the record because it is very much old (Copy of that branch letter enclosed) no record of that person is available at our branch as we have traced at our end. As per our B/o Vasant Vihar requested, I request yourself kindly grant us time.
This matter was argued on 9.11.2015 by which time no record was made available and no reconciliation was conducted amongst the OP3 . OP – 3 has taken inconsistent stand about the recoveries affected from the salary of the complainant. It has taken an inconsistent stand with regard to the period when the recovery was made and the amount recovered from the salary of the complainant. In its letter dated 14.5.2015 ( reproduced above) it has stated that the recovery of the loan was made from the salary of the complainant from 1.12.1998 to 31.3.2008. A recovery statement was filed under the signature of an ACP (Security, New Delhi ) dated 12.12.2014 which is for the period August, 1999 to March, 2008. The statement shows that a sum of Rs.80171/- was recovered from the salary of the complainant. Another recovery statement was filed in the Forum by means of an affidavit of Sh. Narender Chawla, ACP Main Lines Security, Vinay Marg, New Delhi which shows that a sum of Rs.85,200/- was recovered from the
salary of the complainant. As per this recovery statement, the deductions had started in May, 1999 and had been carried on till January, 2004. It had again started in June, 2007 till March, 2008. However , the recovery statements make it amply clear that the recovery was made regularly from the salary for the complainant. Therefore, there was no case of levy of overdue interest on the complainant. If we take into account the stand salary of the complainant. If we take into account the stand of Ops-1&2, that the recovery had started w.e.f. January 1999 a sum of Rs. 4800/- would have further been recovered from the salary of the complainant. That would take the total deductions to Rs.90000/- It is therefore, clear that at least a sum of Rs.18000/- had been recovered in excess from the salary of the complainant. The complainant has not shown any document to prove that a sum of Rs. 21363/- had been recovered in excess from his salary.
No explanation has been given either by Op3 or by Ops 1 & 2 as to why an excess amount was deducted from the salary of the complainant. All the Ops are ,therefore ,guilty of deficiency in service towards the complainant.
Accordingly, we direct OP3 as under:-
- Pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 31-5-2008 till payment.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the pain and agony suffered by him..
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation.
We further direct OP1/ OP2 jointly and severally as under:-
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for the pain and agony suffered by him.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation.
The OPs shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OPs fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
