CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM

Present

Sri. Bose Augustine, President

       Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

   Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member

CC No. 315/12

Tuesday the 30^th day of September, 2014

Petitioner                                                :     P.A Joykutty,

                                                                   Asst.Farm Manager(Rtd)

                                                                   Pulaviruthil Veedu,

                                                                   Manganam PO, Kottaya,-686 018.

Vs

Opposite parties                                     :    Rubber Board Employees Co-

                                                                      Operative Society Ltd., K-155,

                                                                      Keezhukunnu PO, Kottayam 686 002

                                                                      Reptd by its Secretary
                  

                                                                 2) President,

Rubber Board Employees Co-

                                                                         Operative Society Ltd., K-155,

                                                                        Keezhukunnu PO, Kottayam 686 002.

(OP 1& 2 Adv.V.P.Balasubramania Pillai)                                                            3) Rubber Board

                                                                           Keezhukunnu PO,

                                                                           Kottayam 686 002

                                                                          Rptd by Secretary   

                                                                     (Adv.Sony Sebastian&Mary John)

ORDER

    Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

          The case of the complainant presented on 31-10-2012 is as follows:

          The complainant was an employee of the Rubber Board (OP3).  He had 32 years service from 3^rd opposite party and retired from service on 30-4-2012.  He had also a member of the employees Co-Operative Society (OP 1 and OP2)  At the time of retirement the complainant had dues to the 1^st opposite party and 2 in time of Rs.4,74,140/-.  As a usual practice the employee was any dues to be remitted in the society the same was remitted by the employer (OP3) from the pensionary benefits of the complainant to the Society (OP 1 and 2).  But the case of the complainant that the opposite parties had to collect Rs. 6,501/- as interest for 43 days of sanctioning the pensioner benefits of the complainant.  There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint.

          The notice was served with the opposite parties.  They appeared and filed their version.  The version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party contending as follows.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner is liable to pay the arrear amount if any was due to the society with interest as per the terms and conditions of the society.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

          The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A10. The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and one document which is marked as Ext.B1.  The 3^rd opposite party filed proof affidavit and one document which is marked as Ext.B2.

          Heard both sides.  We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences.  The case of the complainant is that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party had illegally collected Rs.6,501/- from him.  According to them there was a usual practice at the time of retirement any amount was due to the society which was collected from the retirement benefits of the said employee without collecting any interest.  The opposite parties made a contention that there was no consumer relation between the complainant and the opposite parties.  According to the opposite parties they have collected any amount from the complainant as consideration for the services.  From the available documents and evidences it can be seen that there was no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties.  Moreover the transaction between the complainant and the opposite party  with regards to the pensionary benefits and as such a master servant relationship between complainant and 3^rd opposite party.  Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

   Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member    Sd/-

  Sri. Bose Augustine, President          Sd/-

   Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member       Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of complainant

Ext.A1-copy of Gratuity Payment Order dtd 20-4-2012

Ext.A2-copy of commutation of pension order dtd 20-4-12

Ext.A3-photocopy of receipt dtd 13-6-12

Ext.A4-photocopy of receipt dtd 13-6-12

Ext.A5-copy of letter dtd 25-6-12

Ext.A6-copy of letter dtd 10-8-12

Ext.A7-copy of letter dtd 27-8-12

Ext.A8-copy of letter dtd24-8-12

Ext.A9-copy of letter dtd 10-9-12

Ext.A10-copy of circular dtd 6-9-12

Documents of opposite parties

Ext.B1-photocopy of application

Ext.B2-copy of  office memorandum of govt.of India No.7/20/89-P&PW(F)

       dt.22-1-1991.

By Order,

Senior Superintendent