D.O.F:29/11/2019
D.O.O:20/06/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.236/2019
Dated this, the 20th day of June 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sebastian.K.D
Kottathil House
Muthappanthara, Bella P.O : Complainant
Anadasramam. Via
Kasaragod
And
1. Secretary
Kerala Police Housing Co-operative Society
Elamkulam, Kochi -20
2. Administrative Assistant
K.A.P Fourth Battalion,
Kannur University P.O
Mangattuparamb – 670567
3. Administrative Assistant
District Police Office
RD Nagar P.O
Kasaragod – 671124
4. Administrative Assistant
District Police Office, : Opposite Parties
Malappuram P.O 676505
Malappuram
5. Commandant
K.A.P Fourth Battalion
Kannur University P.O
Managattuparamb – 670567
6. District Police Chief
District Police Office
RD Nagar P.O
Kasaragod - 671124
7. District Police Chief
District Police Office
Malappuram P.O – 676505
Malappuram
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The facts of the case in this case in brief is that the complainant, while in service as a police officer , subscribed a scheme, namely , Kerala Insurance Savings Housing Co-Operative(KISHCO) started by the Opposite Party No.1, in the year 1988. The monthly installment to be paid was Rs.100/-which was to be collected by the way of salary deduction every month .The total number of installments was 121 and the last installment was to be deducted and paid on 01-08-1998.
The total amount to be paid under the scheme was Rs.12,100/-. The maturity period of the scheme was 21years which would end on 01-08-2009. As per the terms and condition of the scheme a member of the scheme is entitled for an amount of Rs.68,000/-.
The complainant joined for the scheme on 01-08-1998 and Opposite Party No. 2 to 7 had deducted Rs.100/- each every month from the monthly salary of the complainant and remitted the same amount to the account of KISHCO, till 01-08-2009. The KISHCO scheme has been matured on 01-08-2009, but the Opposite Party No.1to 7 have not taken any steps to disburse the amount to the complainant. The complainant, being a police officer working under the Opposite Party No. 2 to 7 on various units, till his retirement on 30-04-2018, during his service, approached the Opposite Party No.1 to 7 several occasions and requested to take necessary steps to get the amount but for no use. After his retirement the complainant personally approached the Opposite Party No.1 in June 2019 and at that time Opposite Party No.1 agreed to pay the amount within one month, but not done.
Thereafter, the complainant sent a registered notice dated 27-07-2019 to the Opposite Party No.1 requesting to take steps to get his amount disbursed, but that also not complied with.
The withholding and nonpayment of the scheme amount after maturity period is service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to 7, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships. Hence this complaint is filed for an order directing the Opposite Parties, to pay the entire scheme amount of Rs.68,000/- with interest along with compensation for mental agony and hardships and litigation costs.
The opposite parties entered in appearance through their respective counsels , who filed separate written versions.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No.1, the complaint is false and frivolous. The Opposite Party No.1 admit that the complainant was a member of the Opposite Party No.1 co-operative society and KISHCO scheme, which was
an investment scheme started by the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant was not regular in remitting the installment . The complainant failed to remit the installments for the months 3/97,4/97,5/97,6/97, 2/98,6/98,7/98 making a due of Rs.700/-. This fact was intimated to the complainant through a letter dated 17-11-2009. As per that letter it was also intimated that the total amount due to him was Rs.29,583/- including interest. A voucher was also sent to the complainant for payment of the said amount but the complainant had not turned up thereafter. The complaint is barred by limitation.
The contention that the complainant had personally approached the Opposite Party No.1 in June 2019 and at that time Opposite Party No.1 agreed to pay the amount within one month is false and hence denied herewith. The claim of the complaint has no basis.
There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and there the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No. 3 and 6, the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable in law. It is true that the complainant had worked under these Opposite Parties for some time. This Opposite Parties have no role in collecting the subscription installments of KISHCO scheme and not liable for any claim made in the complaint. The Opposite Parties are un necessary parties to this case. The complaint is barred by limitation. There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 and 6 therefore the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed. As per the version of the Opposite Party No 4 and 7 the similar contentions are raised.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext. A1 to Ext. A8 marked .The Ext - A1 is the share certificate of the KISHCO Society issued by the Opposite Party No.1 dated 13-05-1988. Ext - A2 is the Identity Card issued by the Opposite Party No.1, Ext - A 3 is the copy of Petition filed by the complainant under RTI Act , Ext A4 is the copy of the Petition dated 09-12-2009 filed by the complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 , Ext. A5 is the copy of the Petition dated 13-01-2010 filed by the complainant to the DGP, Ext. A 6 is the copy of the Petition dated 09-12-2009 filed by the complainant to the Opposite Party No.1, Ext. A7 is the copy of the Petition dated 24-07-2009 filed by the complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 Ext .A 8 is the salary service register of the complainant.
The complainant was Cross -examined as PW - 1. The opposite party didn't adduce any oral evidence but produced certain documents which are marked as Ext. B 1 and Ext. B2. Ext.B1 is the letter dated 17.11.2009 sent by the complainant to the Opposite Party No1, Ext.B2 is the revised Sub Rule of the KISHCO housing scheme.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation. ?
2. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of all or any of the opposite parties?
3. If so what is the relief?
For convenience, all these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that while in service as a police officer ,
he subscribed a scheme, namely Kerala Insurance Savings Housing Co Operative (KISHCO) started by the Opposite Party No.1, in the year 1988. All the 121 instalments of Rs.100/- each were deducted from his monthly salary by Opposite Party No. 2 to 7 and remitted to Opposite Party No.1. As per the terms and condition of the scheme a member of the scheme is entitled for an amount of Rs. 68,000/-.
The scheme has been matured on 01-08-2009, but the Opposite Party No.1to 7 have not taken any steps to disburse the amount to the complainant. The complainant was a police officer working under the Opposite Party No.1to 7 , on various units till his retirement on 30-04-2018 and during his service, he approached the Opposite Party No.1 to 7 , on several occasions and requested to take necessary steps to get the amount but for no use. After his retirement the complainant personally approached the Opposite Party No.1 in June 2019 and at that time Opposite Party No.1 agreed to pay the amount within one month but not done. Therefore the complainant sent a registered notice dated 27-07-2019 to the Opposite Party No.1 requesting to take steps to get his amount but that also not complied with.
The Opposite Parties admit that the complainant was a member of the Opposite Party No.1 co-operative society and KISHCO scheme, which was an investment scheme started by the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant was not regular in remitting the installment. The complainant failed to remit the installments for the months 3/97,4/97,5/97,6/97, 2/98,6/98,7/98 making a due of Rs.700/-.This fact was intimated to the complainant through a letter dated 17-11-2009. As per that letter it was also intimated that the total amount due to him was Rs.29,583/- including interest.
A voucher was also sent to the complainant for payment of the said amount but the complainant has not turned up thereafter. The complaint is barred by limitation.
The main argument raised by the Opposite Parties is the issue of limitation.
Section 24A in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
[24A. Limitation period.—
(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period; Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the time period for filing a complaint for a consumer from the date of violation of a right is 2 years. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgement, on 07.04.2017 in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. (MANU/SC/0390/2017), has held that where a supplier is responsible for causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer's claim, the consumer shall be entitled under law to file a complaint in the Consumer Court even after the expiry of the period of two years.
Here the complainant was a policeman and the scheme was conducted by his superior officers. The complainant submits that due to internal discipline he could not initiate legal proceedings against his superior officers during his service. During service a police personal has no right to file a complaint against his higher authority. The complainant has filed a petition to DGP for permission to approach the court of law to redress the grievance when he was in service. But the permission was not granted.
So immediately after the retirement from the service, he filed this complaint. The Scheme ended on the maturity date 01-08-2009 .The complaint was in service till his retirement date 30.4.2018 .The Opposite Parties did not care to settle the matter during this long period of remaining service for nearly 9 years. The requests of the complainant were unheard. He could come forward with a complaint only after retirement .Therefore in the light of the decision of Supreme court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. (MANU/SC/0390/2017), since the OPs are responsible for causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer's claim, the consumer shall be entitled under law to file a complaint in the Consumer Court even after the expiry of the period of two years and the complaint is not barred by limitation.
It is pertinent to note that the remittance of the monthly installment or subscription amount of the scheme was by the way of the deduction of monthly salary and the complainant was not supposed to pay the same directly. That is not disputed by the Opposite Parties. Such deduction was done by Opposite Party No. 2 to 7, who were the superior officers of the complainant at various occasions. If any installment is not seen paid the complainant cannot be blamed for that. Also the document Ext.A 8 is the salary service register of the complainant would show that the salary disbursing officers had deducted Rs.100/- towards the respective monthly installments from the monthly salary of the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 states that the complaint failed to remit certain installments and that fact was intimated to the complainant through a letter dated 17-11-2009 (Ext. B 1). The complainant deny the receipt of such a letter. But in the light of Ext A8, it can be found that no monthly salary of the complainant was undisbursed and therefore there is no chance of nonpayment any installment by the way of deduction.
The Opposite Parties didn't care to prove such non remittance of installment by leading reliable evidence. Therefore the argument of the Opposite Parties that the complainant failed to remit certain installments cannot be accepted.
Here all the Opposite Party No. 2 to 7 submit that they were only responsible for salary deduction and remittance of the installment amount to the Opposite Party No.1. None of the Opposite Party No.2 to 7 submitted that they have not deducted the amount from complainant's salary and thereby failed to remit. The case of the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 7 that the Opposite Party No.1 is alone responsible for the payment of the scheme amount to the complainant on maturity period.
The complainant's case is that withholding and nonpayment of the scheme amount after maturity period is service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to 7, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships. Hence this complaint is filed for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay the entire scheme amount of Rs.68,000/- with interest along with compensation for mental agony and hardships and litigation costs.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case this commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled for the entire scheme maturity amount of Rs.68,000/- and withholding and nonpayment of the scheme amount after maturity period is service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1 , due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships .
In the result the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay the entire scheme maturity amount of Rs.68, 000/-with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 28-11-2019, the date of complaint to the date of payment .The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as costs.
The time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Share certificate
A2- Identity Card
A3- A letter Dated: 10/11/2009
A4- A letter Dated: 09/12/2009
A5- A letter Dated: 13/01/2010
A6- A letter Dated: 10/01/2017
A7- A letter Dated 24/07/2019
A8- Salary and service register
B1- Letter sent by the OP to the complainant 17/11/2009
B2- Copy of the revised sub rules of KISHCO housing scheme sent by the Registrar of Co-operative Society to the Opposite Party.
Witness Examined
Pw1- Sebastian.K
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
