JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Gururaj Member:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Smt. Parvathi D/o. G. Basappa, against the two Respondents (1) Sri. Narasayya Branch Manager, RDCC Bank, Ltd., Branch, Bangikunta Raichur and the liquidator Tq. Primary School Teachers Credit Co-operative Society at Raichur situated at Nimbikayi Raichur Complex, Gunj Road, Raichur (2) Sri. Baligar Ex-employee of Respondent No-1 society, i.e, Tq; Primary School Teachers Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., situated at Nimbikayi Raichur Complex, Gunj Road, Raichur. The brief facts of the case of the complaint are as under:-<br /> <br /> The complainant is the member of Respondent No-1 and 2. He has subscribed Rs. 400/- towards share in the society vide receipt No. 1924 dt. 6398 and additional share amount of Rs. 2,000/- vide receipt No. 3221 dt. 8798 he has also paid Rs. 10/- towards the loan application form vide receipt No. 363 dt. 06-03-98. The Respondent society registered under co-operative society whose subject is to enroll number, collect share amount and to render service of advancing salary loan to its members on the understanding given by pay drawing and disbursing officer U/sec. 34 of KCS Act 1959. The society has also agrees to render service to its member as per the by laws of the society which includes other services and also besides given loan. There is a contractual obligations between the society and its members in accordance with the by laws.<br /> <br /> Further it is the case of the complainant that, the complainant has availed loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the society in July-1998, on a monthly installment of Rs. 1500/- per month. The pay drawing officer complainant deducting Rs. 1500/- towards loan installment and Rs. 50/- towards RD amount for the credit of complainant’s loan account. The pay and disbursement officer has recovered all the loan installments and according to the complainant entire loan amount in the society with interest recovered by the end of April 2000 itself and the society has adjusted the share amount also. The complainant received the refund of share amount adjusting Rs. 2,500/- from Respondent No-1 vide cheque No. 040581 dt. 19-06-2000. The complainant believed that her loan account is closed since share amount is refunded and thereafter wards the complainant claimed refund or RD amount deducted yet Rs. 50/- per month amounting to Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> <br /> Further it is the case of the complainant that, utter surprisingly the Respondent No-1 issue notice on 10-12-2000 demanding repayment of Rs. 4,595/- towards principle and Rs. 11,657/- towards interest in all to Rs. 16,252/- and the event of not repaying within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice dispute would be file. The complainant and her father have made several efforts by giving representation to the society tried to convince the society that, loan has recovered fully and share amount has been refunded by the complainant and loan account ought to have been closed and unnecessarily demanding loan but all went in vain. <br /> <br /> It is the case of the complainant that, it is the obligatory duty of the chief executive of the society as per by laws to approach the pay disburse and drawing officer of the complainant to reconcile the recoveries, installments made in respect of the complainant and get the loan if any, recoverable by the concerned pay drawing and disbursement officer. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 have not done their obligatory duty and compelled the complainant to approach the pay disbursement officer. The Respondents 1 & 2 are responsible to maintain loan account if at all any amount is not transferred it is their duty to approach the concerned officer and get it recovered. They have also ignored the representation made by the complainant. The act of the Respondents is ill will and intentional one in order to harass the poor lady, the complainant they have done so. This is nothing but a serious deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents No- 1 & 2, hence she has sought a relief as prayed in her complaint. <br /> <br /> 2. In response to service of the notice the Respondent 1 & 2 have appeared through their counsel. The Respondent No-1 has filed written version. The Respondent No-2 has adopted the version of the Respondent No-1.The contention of the written version filed by the Respondent No-1 is as under:-<br /> <br /> The Taluka Primary School Teacher Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., is a registered co-operative society under the KCS Act, 1959 and it’s by laws are approved under the said act and KCS Rules 1960. The registered of C.S. is the competent authority to register and control the affairs of the society. The Respondent No-1 is Branch Manager of the RDCC Bank Ltd., Raichur who is appointed as a liquidator of the above society U/sec. 73 of KCS Act 1959. If at all, any disputes existed against the society the complainant has to raise a dispute U/sec. 70 of the KCS Act 1959 for seeking the relief with regard to reconciliation of her loan account with the society.<br /> <br /> Further it is the case of the Respondents that the complaint of the complainant itself shows that, the complainant received notice on 10-12-2000 demanding the payment of loan amount, as such the cause of action arose on 10-12-2000. But the complainant has filed her complaint on 27-11-09 this is clearly goes to show that her complaint is barred by time. The complainant has not made drawing officer as a party to the proceedings as he is a drawing officer and on his undertaken the loan will be sanctioned to the members. Hence the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, as it is non joinder of necessary party. <br /> <br /> Further it is the case of the Respondent that, the complainant has not repaid the loan installments as per the agreed terms and conditions. The onus of proving her repayment lies on her. Issuing of per forted cheque on 19-06-2000 cannot be construed that, she discharged entire loan on the society. The loan amount was not deducted from the salary of the complainant by the drawing officer, knowing fully well the complainant has kept quiet, hence notice was issued calling upon to repay the loan due as per the Books of Accounts of the society. Now the society is under liquidation, the Respondent No-1 has to realize the assets from the debtors and settle the claim against the society in accordance with the Rule 33 of the KCS Rules. It is rightful on the part of the liquidator to cause the recovery from the complainant and discharged liability to the creditors. Under the above circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, hence sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments of the complaint and she has got marked (5) documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5(1) & (2). In rebuttal the Respondent No-1 has filed sworn affidavit of Jgali Narsappa, Branch Manager, RDCC Bank, Raichur and liquidator. The Respondents have filed (4) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. <br /> <br /> <br /> 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points are arises for our consideration and determination:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant prove deficiency in service by the Respondent No-1 as alleged.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. In the Negative<br /> <br /> 2. As per final order for the following <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 6. There is no dispute that, the complainant is a member of Respondent No-1 society by subscribing towards share amount on 06-03-98 by paying share amount of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 400/-. Further it is also not in dispute that, the complainant has availed loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the Respondent No-1 Society on a monthly installment of Rs. 1,500/-.<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant has filed during the course of enquiry in all six documents namely: (1) Notice dt. 10-12-08 issued by Respondent No-1 is marked at Ex.P-1, (2) Receipts dt. 08-07-98 & 06-03-98 for having paid share amounts by the complainant to the Respondent No-1 society are marked at Ex.-2 & ExP-3, (3) The Receipt dt. 06-03-98 for having paid for loan application is marked at Ex.P-4, (4) Notice dt. 22-06-09 issued by Respondent No-1 society to the complainant is marked at Ex.P-5(1), (5) Letter dt. 06-07-09 written by complainant to the Respondent No-1 society is marked at Ex.P-5(2). <br /> <br /> 8 Similarly the Respondents has filed (4) documents namely :- (1) Letter dt. 06-01-09 written by Respondent No-1’s Society Liquidator is marked at Ex.R-1, (2) Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Raichur is marked at Ex.R-2, (3) Reply notice dt. 26-10-09 issued by Respondent No-1 to the counsel for the complainant is marked at Ex.R-3, (4) Extract of Member’s Loan Account (of complainant) is marked at Ex.R-4. <br /> <br /> 9. It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant is a member of the Respondent No-1 society by subscribing towards share amount Rs. 2000/- & Rs. 400/- and she has also paid Rs. 50/- per month towards RD for a period of (20) months which amounting to Rs. 1,000/-. Further it is the case of the complainant that, she has availed loan of Rs. 25,000/- on a monthly installments of Rs. 1,500/- and same has been repaid through her salary deductions but even inspite of entire repayment of loan the Respondent No-1 society is not giving no due certificate and also not paying Rs. 1,000/- RD amount. Further the complainant alleged against the Respondent NO-1 that, even inspite of repayment of the loan the Respondent No-1 has got issued notice for the due amount which is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. <br /> <br /> 10. The case of the Respondent No-1 is that, the complainant has not cleared her loan amount she is totally due to the society is to the tune of Rs. 4,595/- towards principle and Rs. 11,657/- towards interest as on 31-12-08. As per the provisions of KCS Act 1959 the Respondent No-1 has to cause the recovery from the complainant and discharge liability to the creditor therefore they have taken necessary steps against the complainant, there is no deficiency on the part of the Respondent. <br /> <br /> 11. On perusal of the Ex.R-4 i.e, Extract of the member loan account it is very clear that, the complainant is has availed Rs. 25,000/- loan on 17-07-98 and due towards principle is Rs. 4,595/- and interest as on 30-09-08 Rs. 11,657/- and as on 30-09-02 Rs. 12,665/-. From the Ex.P-4 it is very clear that, the complainant is in all due Rs. 16,252/- to the Respondent No-1 society. The case of the complainant is that, she has repaid entire loan amount to the Respondent No-1 society and sought for no due certificate. In order to prove the case of the complainant that, complainant has not produced any documents to show that, she has paid entire loan amount or the loan installment has been deducted from the salary of the complainant as contended by the complainant. Neither the salary deduction statement has been produced nor has the report been submitted by the salary drawing officer in order to show that, her salary has been deducted and same has been transferred to her loan account. In the absence of such kind of evidence it cannot be believed that, the complainant has repaid the loan amount and from the salary. The Ex.R-4 extract is the authenticated document filed by the Respondent, to defeat such documents complainant has to produce her salary details but no such documents are made available before this Forum. Under such circumstances, we cannot hold that, the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount to the Respondent No-1 society.<br /> <br /> 12. The complainant in her complaint has raised another point regarding payment of RD on monthly at Rs. 50/- per month. Regarding this point is also concerned, complainant has not produced any documents to show that, she has paid RD for a period of (20) months which amounts to Rs. 1,000/- and same is to be refunded. If at all, RD amount has been deducted along with the loan installments of Rs. 1,500/- as contended by the complainant, nothing has prevented her to prove by producing relevant documents before this Forum, no documents has been filed in this regard. Mere oral evidence of the complainant cannot be believed unless otherwise they have supported from some documents hence we have not accepted her pleadings in this regard. <br /> <br /> 13. On perusal of Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 i.e, letters written by the Respondent No-1 society to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies are clearly speaks about the due and same has been made known to the complainant. Particularly on perusal of Ex.R-2 i.e, letter dt. 17-02-09 it is very clear that, the salary amount has been deducted from the salary of complainant from 02-09-98 to 16-03-2000 and Rs. 1,500/- has been deducted it means in all (15) months salary has been deducted and same has been credited to the loan account of the complainant. Further the said Ex.R-2 which is also clearly speaks about the due for five months i.e, due for the month of September 1998, November 1998, December 1998, August 1999 & September 1999. From this it is very clear that, the complainant in all due for five months to the Respondent Society. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reasons to hold that, Respondent has failed to issue the no due certificate regarding the loan is concerned. <br /> <br /> 14. Viewing from all the angles the complainant herself is due to the Respondent No-1 company, under such circumstances the Respondent is right in initiating the producing for recovery against the complainant and refuse to <br /> give the no due certificate. Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. <br /> <br /> 15. The complainant in his complaint sought for a relief of recasting the loan account of the complainant by securing the information from the disbursement officer of the complaint. In our view such relief cannot be grant by this Forum, in order to get such kind of relief civil courts or the competent authority wherein rectification of accounts and other relief’s can be sought. Therefore we have rejected the relief of the complainant in this regard. <br /> <br /> 16. Further the on going reasons we feel that, the complaisant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint hence we have rejected all the relief’s sought under the complaint. Hence Point NO-1 is answered in negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 17. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents so the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.<br /> Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 22-03-10.)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi<br /> Member. President, <br /> District Consumer Forum-Raichur District Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />