Karnataka

Kolar

CC/69/2016

BEML Employees Credit Co-Operative Society - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Sridhar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.Ragahvan

15 Dec 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 19/10/2016

Date of Order: 15/12/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 69 OF 2016

BEML Employees Credit

Co-operative Society (Regd.),

Maharaja Road,

Robertsonpet, K.F.G.563122.   

Represented by its:

President and Secretary.                                  ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. P. Ragavan, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) Sr. Sridhar,

Assistant Master,

Government Lower Primary School,

Begili Bengana Halli, Kolar.

(Exparte)

 

2) The Block Educational Officer,

Kolar Range, Kolar District,

Kolar.

(In-person)                                                            …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties claiming issuance of directions against the OP No.1 to repay the said loan amount of Rs.29,116/- with interest of Rs.45,420/- in all Rs.74,536/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of default till realization and direct the OP No.2 the guarantor of this loan to deduct the loan amount as per the loan undertaking letter dated: 16.02.2004 and also sought for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss to the society and mental agony and any other reliefs as this forum deems to be fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is the contention of the complainant that, being registered society registration No.ARK/B/Reg. of Co-op. CS/Reg. No.3187/76-77 given loan to OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25.02.2004 with a condition to repay the same in 53 equal installments as per the loan agreement executed by OP No.1.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, OP No.1 had repaid a sum of Rs.20,884/- up to 30.08.2008, later on not paid the installments nor replied for the complainant’s notices also.  OP No.2 being a salary disbursement authority for OP No.1 and had agreed to deduct the loan installments from OP No.1 had failed to do so.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on various dates of incidence as narrated in the complaint and on the date of loans and on the date of letter of guarantee/undertaking given by the Ops.  And for the point of limitation the routine process in the society in the month of September every year as per the opinion of Annual General Body Meeting approached OP No.1 on 30.09.2016, even though OP No.1 has not paid the loan.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand seeking above set out reliefs. 

 

(c)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following copies of the documents:-

(i) Loan Application with Bond for installment Loan

(ii) Personnel Loan request letter issued by Disbursement Authority.

(iii) Pay Slip of OP No.1

(iv) Details of installments paid by the OP No.1 with voucher

(v)  Paper Publication of Kolara Pathrike

 

03.   In response to the notice one Sri. K.R. Muniswamy Gowda appeared in-person on behalf of OP No.2 and filed memo and submitted Death Certificate of OP No.1 who died on 11.06.2013 and take steps to LR of OP No.1 and the same was returned as insufficient address and therefore paper publication was taken and none were appeared and OP No.1 placed exparte.  OP No.2 not filed version. 

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.  The OP No.2 has not filed affidavit evidence.  Heard arguments of the complainant.

 

05.   Now the points that arise for our consideration are:-

(1) Whether this complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986?

 

(2) Whether the complainant is a “Consumer”?

 

(3) What Order?

 

06.   Our findings to the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):       In the Affirmative.

POINT (2):       In the Negative.

POINT (3):       As per the final order

                                         for the following:-

REASONS

POINT (1) & (2):-

07.   These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.

 

08.   The complainant stated in the averments of his pleadings that, as the cause of action for this complaint arose on various dates of incidence and on the date of loan advanced to the defaulters particularly on the date of letter of guarantee/undertaking given by the OP ensuring periodical repayment by deduction from the salary.  Later on for the reasons given for limitation is, on the routine process of the society in the month of September of every year and as per the decision of such Annual General Body Meeting the complainant had approached the OP No.1 on 30.09.2016.  This was the specific contention of the complainant.  But none of the above said documents were produced before the court to show the continuity of cause of action from last payment i.e., on 30.08.2008. 

 

09.   Now it is the duty of the Forum to examine whether the complaint is filed within time or not.  When such a specific contention has been taken by this complainant, the date of loan is 25.02.2004 and the OP No.1 had repaid the amount up to 30.08.2008, but this complainant has not come up with a necessary application for condonation of delay of limitation.  Simply oral pleadings of this complainant without any such application, the said contention cannot be considerable and the complainant has come to the Forum with malafide intention.  Therefore it is clear that, the date of loan is on 25.02.2004 and OP No.1 paid up to 30.08.2008 and the complaint is filed on 19.10.2016 which is almost barred by time span under this Act and there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint and the complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by time

 

10.   Now it is relevant to state here that, the counsel for the complainant has filed LRs application on the death of OP No.1 and the said application has been allowed, but LRs of OP No.1 has not brought on record in spite of taking sufficient time.  And the said IA will become infrectious.  But in the order-sheet it has been wrongly noted as Exparte.  And further on perusal of the contents of the complaint it reflects nature of money suit between parties and the complainant is not a Consumer as the OP has not availed any service for consideration and the complainant is not a Consumer to entertain the complaint.  And accordingly we answered Point (1) in the affirmative and Point (2) in the Negative.

 

POINT (3):-

11.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) and (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

(01)  The complaint is hereby dismissed as not maintainable and so also it is barred by limitation.

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 15^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017)

 

 

 

         LADY MEMBER                              PRESIDENT