BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

C.C.No.24/2017

 Date of filing: 11/04/2017

Date of disposal: 21/02/2019

P R E S E N T :-

- V/S -

JUDGEMENT

By Smt. Sharada. K. President.

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “OPs”) directed the OPs to issue loan clearance statement and the extra amount deducted in the complainant’s salary with accrued interest there upon till realization and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and any other reliefs.

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

          The case of the complainant is that, the complainant was working as a conductor at OP.No.2 Corporation, since 26.08.2003 and now he has been transferred to Gadag Division and further the complainant while working at OP.No.2’s corporation as the working category of NWKRTC had formulated one Co-op. Society and it has been called as the NWKRTC Employees Co-op. Society, Bagalkot and this society is carrying out the business of banking as collecting the amount, opening the SB account and issuing the loans to the above said societies employees on repayment basis and this is being governed by the norms of Reserve Bank of India guidelines and during the service of the complainant, he has been enrolled as a member of the above said society by paying the requisite amount and also opened SB account bank book to the OP.No.1 society and its Number is 1-241 and LF 125 dtd: 26.08.2003.

It is further contended that, the complainant had availed a loan for Rs.40,000/- on dtd: 26.08.2003 by fulfilling all the norms of the society and the EMI of Rs.3,000/- has been deducted continuously from the date of due and now the loan might have been completely cleared. But, the OP.No.1 has informed that, the loan has not been cleared by the complainant and he come to OP.No.1 office and clear the entire outstanding loan amount with interest immediately. Since, the complainant asked the concerned Ops to issue repayment status report, but the OP.No.1 has denied issuing the said statement to the complainant.  

Finally, the complainant has issued a legal notice to the OP.No.1 through his Counsel on dtd: 09.02.2017. After receiving the said notice, the OP.No.1 has replied to the complainant on dtd: 28.02.2017, stating that, the contents of legal notice are false and denied that, the OP has not deducted more than the amount, what the complainant ought to pay to the OP.No.1 and also written that, the complainant has been confused in statement of accounts and he has to pay Rs.40,000/- plus interest to the Op.No.1 and also Arbitration Decree has been awarded against the complainant and EP is also in processes before the Assistant Registrar of Co-op. Societies of Bagalkot, but till today, the complainant has not received either the Arbitration Decree or EP notice, due to this, the Ops have failed to provide proper services to the complainant, it clearly attracts deficiency of service towards complainant. Hence, complainant has constrained to file this complaint.

3.      After issue of notice to the Opponents. The OPs have appeared through their Counsel and OP.No.1 has filed his written version and OP.No.2 has neither filed written version nor put-forth any affidavit evidence in the above said complaint. 

The OP.No.1 contended that, the contents of complaint paras are partly true and partly false and further contended that, the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous concocted not tenable either in law or facts, hence it is liable to be dismissed and further it is true that, the complainant has availed loan for Rs.40,000/- on dtd: 26.08.2003 with EMI of Rs.3,000/- and then OP.No.1 has sent the recovery sheet to the Division Controller and Account Officer for deduction of the loan amount in the salary of complainant and it is false that, the EMI of the complainant’s is continuously deducted from the date of due and loan might have completely cleared and further the complainant had producing the deduction of the salary slip from the month of June-2008 onwards. But, the above said loan was availed on dtd: 26.08.2003, after the gap of the five years, the said loan was deducted from complainant’s salary and also there is gap between deductions from salary. When, the complainant was transfer to the Gadag Division the EMI of Rs.3,000/- has been deducted from his salary. Whether OP.No.1 had deducted more amounts from complainant salary, please produce salary slip and society receipts before this Hon’ble Forum, OP.No.1 was ready to settle the loan amount before this Hon’ble Forum and further the OP.No.1 had not at all orally said that, the complainant’s loan amount is Rs.40,000/- + interest, whether the complainant was paid the due loan amount to the Op.No.1 society, then the OP.No.1 will give the loan clearance certificate and also Arbitration Decree has been awarded against complainant and Execution Petition was under process in Assistant Register Co-op. Society Bagalkot. Therefore it is crystal clear that, the OP.No.1 was not guilty of any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost of Rs.25,000/-. 

4.      In support of the claim in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced some documents, which are as under;

5.      On behalf of OP.No.1 has filed his affidavit and produced some documents, which are as under;

6.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:  

1. Whether the complainant proved that, OP made

    deficiency in service ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief
3. What order

7.     Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 - Affirmative.

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3 - As per the final order for the following:

R E A S O N S

8.  POINT NO.1 & 2:-  The complainant filed this complaint against the OPs alleging that, the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.40,000/- with the OP.No.1 on dtd: 26.08.2003 with EMI of Rs.3,000/- which has been deducted in his salary and the same has been deposited to the OP.No.1 and further the said EMI of Rs.3,000/- has been continuously deducted from the salary of the complainant till date, now also OP’s are showing due’s in the complainant loan account and further submits that, when the complainant has approached the OPs to give the detailed account summary, then the Ops have refused to do so. Hence, the complainant had taken the account statement through RTI it shows that, he had made surplus payment to the OPs.

          Op’s submits that, the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.40,000/- with EMI of Rs.3,000/- and OP denied that, the EMI was not deducted continuously from the next date of availing the loan and complainant had produced the pay slip from the salary of June-2008, the EMI was deducted from the complainant’s salary after the gap of 5 years when the complainant transferred to Gadag Division, therefore the complainant had not paid the loan amount EMI to the OP.No.1, then the OP has  approached the Arbitration, the Arbitration Decree has been awarded against the complainant and Execution Petition was under process at Asst. Registrar of Co-Operative Society, Bagalkot.

          Based on the above pleading and objections, we have gone through the records on file and argument heard from both the counsels, the OP.No.1 has produced loan documents, which belongs to the complainant and even, it is undisputed fact that, the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.40,000/- with OP’s in the year-2003, the contention of the OP.No.1 is that, he had referred the matter to Arbitration and further submits that, the award also had been drawn under Arbitration and Conciliation, further the contention is that, OP had already filed the Execution Petition before the Competent Authority for recovery of the award amount to substantiate this contention, in order to prove the said contention, the OP had not produced any material document except resolution copy and the statement given by the OP before the Arbitration, in our view that, the OP has failed to produce any award copy or else, as per the submission of OP and even the OP has failed to produce recovery proceedings from concerned authority, while observing the document produced by the OP himself that, the Account Summary of the Complainant before the Forum, it speaks that, the remaining balance of loan is Rs.13,310/- it also speaks that, they have recovered the interest more than principle, it also speaks that, they have levied the penal interest.  But, in the application there are no such terms and conditions to levy the interest on interest, the Ops are only liable for the interest on principle amount @ of 17% P.A. Hence, we came to the conclusion that, the OPs have made un-fair trade practice, hence we answer to Point No.1 in Affirmative and Point No.2 in partly affirmative.

8)     POINT NO. 3:     In view of our findings on the above points, In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

1. The Complaint is Partly Allowed.
2. Further OPs are directed to calculate the balance loan amount of the complainant with interest @ 17 % p.a. on the principle amount.
3. Further OPs are directed to furnish clearance certificate after receiving the balance loan amount to the complainant.
4. Parties have to bear their own costs.
5. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of costs.

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this  21^st day of February, 2019).