Date of Filing :06.02.2021

 Date of Disposal :28.10.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:28.10.2024

PRESENT

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL No.122/2021

Mr K Janardhana Gowda

S/o K K Koragappa Gowda

Aged about 65 years

R/at Janani Nilaya

Bypass Road

Urandy, Puttur, Kasaba Village

Puttur Post, Puttur-574 201

(By Mr P S D’Costa, Advocate)                                        Appellant

                                                 -Versus-                                                    

1. President

    Provident Fund Office

    K S R T C Head Office

    Shanthinagar

    Bengaluru-560 027

2. The Divisional Controller

    K S R T C Puttur Division

    ALMS Building, Bolwar

    Puttur, D.K-574 201                                                  Respondent

    (By Mr S B. Srikanth, Advocate)  

-:ORDER:-

Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 28.07.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No.254/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru(for short, the District Commission).

2.       The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the District Forum.

3.       The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and records of District Forum. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be: 

          Whether impugned order dated 28.07.2020 passed in CC No. 254/2017 does call any interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?

4.       It is not in dispute that Appellant/Complainant was an employee of OPs from 31.05.1982 to 31.12.2015; he retired from service w.e.f 31.12.2015 and he received retirement benefits of Rs.11,10,260/-. However, Rs.18,333/- was deducted from his retirement benefit towards overdue interest.  The dispute involved in this complaint would be in respect of deducting of Rs.18,333/- towards overdue interest.  According to Appellant/Complainant, such deduction is illegal and the OPs are not allowed to deduct overdue interest when he had availed dwelling loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- only from the Employee Provident Fund Scheme 1952 under Para 68-B which was not refundable.  It has come in the enquiry that the complainant had produced the completion report of the dwelling house on 19.08.2014 to the OPs and the same is certified by OPs on 29.10.2014.  In such circumstances, in our view, deduction of Rs.18,333/- in the retirement benefit without issuing any notice to the complainant during the period while in service has to be held illegal or contrary to Para 68-B of Employee Provident Fund Scheme 1952 when complainant has shown that Rs.5,00,000/-  non-refundable amount availed to built a house which was completed on 19.08.2014 which was also certified on 29.10.2014. In our view Ops being employer, before deduction of Rs.18,333/- in the retirement benefit could have informed the complainant, while he was in service, since they failed to give such notice while he was in service have deducted the penal amount which is not at all appreciated.

5.       It has also come in the enquiry that even after his retirement from service of OPs had served for over a period of 2 years, yet OPs failed to issue prior notice and failed to hold a preliminary enquiry whether he has utilised the non refundable amount for which it was advanced, as such deduction of penal interest on non refundable amount has to be held violation of principle of natural justice.  In this regard the  Appellant/ Complainant has rightly submitted the recovery of the withdrawal under sub-paragraph 10 of GSR 832 dated 23.10.1987, the recovery of the withdrawal shall be restricted to cases where the recovery has been ordered by sanctioning Authority while the member is in service.  We reiterate that the amount sanctioned at Rs.5,00,000/-  under dwelling loan amount was not refundable, however, OPs have failed to consider either the completion report and failed to hold a preliminary enquiry before deducting the penal interest is nothing but rendering deficiency of services was  not at all appreciated by the District Commission while passing the impugned order. 

In the above such circumstances, impugned order dated 28.07.2020 and review order dated 08.12.2020 are to be held contrary to the facts and law are liable to the set aside and in  such conclusion, proceed to allow the Appeal.  Consequently, set aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No.254/2017 and review order dated 08.12.2020  on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru and as a result, allowed the complaint in part and directed OPs 1 and 2 to refund Rs.18,333/- along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a from 04.03.2016 till realisation and do pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for rendering deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 60 days.  Failing which, such amount also shall carry interest at the rate of 7% p.a from such date till realisation.

6.       Return the LCR forthwith to the District Commission.

7.       Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties concerned.

                Lady Member                    Judicial Member

*s