IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of September, 2015
Filed on 21.10.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.165/2005
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Kesavan Sidhardhan 1. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (RR)
Kollamparambil KSFE Ltd., Alappuzha
Thekkanaryadu Muri
Komalapuram Village 2. The District Transport Officer
Avalookkunnu P.O. KSRTC., Alappuzha
Alappuzha (By Adv. T.S. Krishnakumar)
(By Adv. T.G. Sanalkumar)
3. The Manager, KSFE Ltd.
Mullackal, Alappuzha
(By Adv. P.V. Rajamma)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The brief facts of the case in short are as follows:-
The complainant is a retired person from the KSRTC. While he was working at KSRTC he stood as a guarantor of Saraswathi who was a chital of a chitty conducted by the third opposite party KSFE. Since the chital Smt. Saraswathi made defaults in remitting the chitty amount, the third opposite party has sent notice to the second opposite party requesting to recover the defaulted amount from salary of the complainant who is the guarantor. As per the said notice a sum of Rs.17,000/- was to be recovered from the salary of the complainant and accordingly Rs.1500/- was recovered monthly from his salary from 11/2000 to 3/2002. The complainant was under the belief that the entire transaction has been closed. Thereafter the complainant retired from service on 30.6.2002. But on 13.12.2002 the complainant got a notice from the third opposite party. As per the said notice, the complainant has to remit an amount of Rs.14,465/- along with interest and notice charges within 10 days otherwise they will initiate attachment proceedings against the complainant. As per the said notice dated 13.12.2012 complainant need to pay an amount of Rs.14,465/- only. So the amount to be realize from the complainant is only Rs.14,465/- but the third opposite party issued notice to the second opposite party to recover an amount of Rs.17,000/- on 28.8.2000. So the third opposite party has committed deficiency in service and the complainant entitled to get refund of the excess amount realized Rs.2535/-. On 11.2.2005 the third opposite party has sent a registered letter to the complainant stating that he has to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- also, otherwise they will initiate legal proceedings against the complainant. The complainant is not liable to pay any amount. Already an amount of Rs.17,000/-has been recovered from his salary and he was not liable to pay any further amount. Hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties seeking a direction against the first opposite party to stop the further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 23.8.2005 along with a compensation of Rs.5000/-.
2. The version of the second opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. There is no continuous recovery of salary from 11.2000 to 3/2002. A total sum of Rs.17,000/- has been recovered, during November, 2000 to July 2001 and January 2002 to March 2002. The said amount has been recovered from the salary of the complainant as per the direction of Special Deputy Tahsildar (RR) KSFE., Alappuzha and the same was remitted at the KSFE Branch. Second opposite party is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.2535/- and the second opposite party remitted the full attached amount to the third opposite party.
3. The version of the third opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. The complainant is a guarantor of the prized chitty of the chital Smt. Saraswathy , since the chital made defaults in remittance, this opposite party has requested the second opposite party to attach the due amount from his salary. The complainant was a guarantor of the chital Smt. Saraswathy in chitty No.50/95. The said chital made defaults in remitting the chitty amount. As per the chitty agreement 12% interest will be imposed on defaulted amount. So this opposite party issued demand notice to the second opposite party requesting to attach the salary of the complainant.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and document marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Third opposite party was examined as RW1. They produced the copy of ledger of the chital Smt. Saraswathy which was marked as Ext.C1.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainants are entitled to get the relief sought for?
5. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is while the complainant was working at second opposite party KSRTC he was a guarantor of a priced chitty conducted by the third opposite party KSFE. When the chital Smt. Saraswathy made defaults in remitting the chitty amount, the third opposite party has sent a notice to the second opposite party to recover an amount of Rs.17,000/- from the salary of the complainant and as per the said notice an amount of Rs.17,000/- was recovered from the salary of the complainant from November, 2000 to March, 2002. Thereafter the complainant was under the impression that the entire transaction has been closed. The complainant retired from the service on 30.6.2002. On 13.12.2002 the complainant got a notice from the third opposite party and as per the said notice he has to pay an amount of Rs.14,465/- along with interest. So the amount to be realized from the complainant is only Rs.14,465/-. But third opposite party issued notice to the second opposite party to recover an amount of Rs.17,000/-. Therefore the third opposite party had committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.2,265/- from the second opposite party. On 11.2.2005 the complainant get a notice from the first opposite party stating that he has to pay Rs.4000/- otherwise they will initiated RR proceedings against the complainant. The complainant sustained much mental agony, hence filed this complaint. In order to find out whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party, we have to see whether the second opposite party has remitted the entire amount deducted from the salary of the complainant to the third opposite party. If so that is within the time. From Ext.A2 it can be seen that the third opposite party has sent a notice to the second opposite party to deduct an amount of Rs.17,000/- from the salary of the complainant. From Ext.A4 certificate it can be seen that an amount of Rs.17,000/- has been deducted from the salary of the complainant. The third opposite party KSFE in the proof affidavit stated that they have received a total amount of Rs.19,970/- from the second opposite party on various dates. So it is clear that KSRTC has remitted the entire attached amount from the salary of the complainant to the third opposite party. So this Forum can’t find any deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party. The next point is to be considered whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of third and first opposite parties. The complainant was a guarantor of the chital Smt. Saraswathy in Chitty No.50/95. The said chitty is for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and has 50 installments starting from 17.12.1995 and ending on 7.1.2000. While so the chitty was cashed in auction on 10.3.1997 and the complainant was a guarantor to the chitty. The chital Smt. Saraswathy paid the installments till 8.7.1998. Thereafter she defaulted in remittance of the chitty amount. So the chitty installments became due from 8.8.1998 ie. from the 33 installments onwards ie, 18 installments were due was terminated on 7.1.2000 and 18 installments were remain unpaid. On 28.8.2000 the KSFE issued a letter – Ext.A2 to attach an amount of Rs.17,000/- plus default interest from the salary of the complainant. On 13.12.2002 KSFE issued a letter – Ext.A1 to the complainant stating that he has to pay an amount of Rs.14,465/- along with interest. According to the complainant the amount demanded in Exts.A1 and A2 are different. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party. But in between these dates the third opposite party KSFE has received a total amount of Rs.4970/- from the second opposite party KSRTC ie. an amount of Rs.1,485/- was paid, 26.3.2002 – an amount of Rs.1485/- paid, 29.5.2002 – an amount of Rs.500/- and on 21.10.2002 an amount of Rs.1500/- paid. So the allegations of the complainant, the amount claimed in both the notices are different therefore the opposite party committed deficiency in service does not sustain. From the documents produced before us, Ext.C1 would show the chital Smt. Saraswathi made default from the 33 installment onwards ie. 18 installments were due. The complainant has not produced the chitty pass book of the chital Smt. Saraswathi to prove otherwise. From Ext.A2 it can be not seen that the amount due is only Rs.17,000/-. As per Ext.A2 letter the second opposite party attached an amount of Rs.17,000/- from the salary of the complainant, and the same was paid to the third opposite party third opposite party. In Ext.A2 it is stated that an amount of Rs.17,000/- plus default interest is to be recovered. So we can’t say that amount due is only Rs.17,000/-. Since the due amount was not realized the first opposite party sent a notice to the complainant stating they will initiate RR proceedings. In the view of above findings, we can’t find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Since there is no deficiency in service proves the amount of compensation does not arise for consideration. As such points 1 and 2 are found in favour of the opposite parties. We can’t hold opposite parties liable for any deficiency in service. So the complaint is to be dismissed. But the opposite parties 1 and 3 are not entitled to get any amount other than that was mentioned in Ext.A5 demand notice.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Kesavan Sidharthan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the notice dated 13.12.2002
Ext.A2 - Copy of the reminder dated 28.8.2000
Ext.A3 - Copy of the certificate dated 24.12.2002
Ext.A4 - Copy of the notice dated 11.2.2005
Ext.A5 - Copy of the demand notice dated 23.8.2005
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Vinodkumar (Witness)
Ext.C1 - True copy of the ledger (5 sheets)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
