Date of Filing: 30.12.2010
Date of Order: 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 20th DAY OF MARCH -2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. Ramachandra Rao, BSc., B.L, President
Smt. K.G. Shantala, Member
Sri. T. Nagaraja, Member
C.C. NO.236/2010
Mr. Munavar Baig,
S/o. Late K.Ameer Baig,
Major, Retired KSRTC Driver,
K.G.F. Depot, R/at: No.2908,
1st Cross, Tippu Nagar,
Bangarpet.
(Rep. by Sri.Sama Rangappa, Advocate) …COMPLAINANT.,
-V/s-
(1) The Divisional Controller,
K.S.R.T.C., Kolar Division,
Kolar, Kolar District.
(Rep. by K.Narasimhagowda, Advocate)
(2) The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
Batlahalli Branch, P.B.No.1/40,
Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District.
(Rep. by Sri.V.Sreedhara Murthy, Advocate) …..OPPOSITE PARTIES.
ORDER
BY SRI. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum, are necessary :-
The complainant retired from the service of the 1st Opposite party on 31.07.2010 as a driver. During his service he purchased KA-08-J-2930 a two wheeler and the Opposite party No.2 has sanctioned the loan and the Opposite party No.1 has undertaken to deduct the EMI’s of Rs.1,065/- per month between December-2004 and June-2009 and the Opposite party No.1 had to send the amounts to the opposite party No.2. The EMIs were deducted from the salary every month correctly by the Opposite party No.1. The complainant approached the Opposite party No.1 to release the retirement benefits, the opsoite party No. 1 sought clearance certificate from opposite party No.2. The complainant approached the Opposite party No.2 then he was told by the Opposite party No.2 that still Rs.32,600/- is due and unless it is paid they cannot issue clearance certificate. The opposite party No.1 has not paid the EMIs regularly to the Opposite party No.2 and that is the cause for this. Hence complainant issued notice to the opposite parites on 01.09.2010 they have not replied the notice. Hence the Opposite parties are jointly and severaly liable to pay the amount.
2(a). In brief the version of the opposite party No.1 are:-
The employment of the complainant, his retirement on 21.01.2010, his availing the vehicle loan, deduction of the EMIs are all admitted. All the amounts are paid to the opposite party No. 2. On retirement PF of Rs.4,32,878/- has been paid to the complainant on 21.02.2008 and 22.09.2010 Gratuity of Rs.3,59,633/- was paid on 17.01.2011. At the request of the complainant, No Due Certificate the oppsoite party No.2 withheld a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The entire loan amount has been remitted to the opposite party No.2 and nothing is due. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
2(b). In brief the version of the Opposite party No.2 are:-
The drivership of the complainant with the opposite party No.1 is admitted. This Opposite party has sanctioned the vehicle loan of Rs.47,455/- on 27.04.2004 to the complainant at the rate of 12% per annum compounded quarterly and the EMIs has to be paid by the Opposite party No.1 at the rat of Rs.1,260/- per month. The 1st opposite party has not sent the funds to this opposite party regularly. Even though they had deducted the same regularly and because of the delay in the account there is such due which the complainant is liable to pay. Unless that amount is paid no due certificate will not be issued. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B):- As per the detailed order
for the following:-
REASONS
Point (A) & (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant was working as a driver in the opposite party No.1 he was sanctioned a vehicle loan of Rs.47,755/- on 27.04.2004 by the Opposite party No.2 at a rate of interest of 12% per annum compounded quarterly and EMI of Rs.1,265/- has to be deducted by the Opposite party No.1 and it had to be sent to the opposite party No.2. It is also established that from the salary of the complainant this entire amount has been recovered regularly by the Opposite party No.1. It is seen from the statement of accounts produced by the Opposite party No.2 and the complainant that the Opposite party No.1 though deducted the EMIs regularly has not sent it to the Opposite party No.2 regularly causing delay of 2 months or three months delay every time and due to this unless the Opposite party No.2 levied interest, penal interest, late fee charges and thus it is seen in the account Rs.32,600.72 is still due. This is caused because of the negligence of the opposite party No.1. The complainant is retired from service the Opposite party No.2 wanted the NOC from the opposite party No.1 so that they can disburse the terminal benefits and in this regard they deducted Rs.40,000/- from the retirement benefits and paid the rest of the amount to the complainant. It is owing to the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party No.2 in the loan account of the complainant penal interest, interest, late fee charges, etc., have been levied and that has to be paid.
In any event EMIs have been recovered from the complainant. The complainant would have gone to the Bank at least once in six months to know whether the amount has been paid to them or gone to the opposite party No.1 and enquired whether the amount has been paid regularly to opposite party No.1 this latches are there. OP2 would have written to Complainant and to OP1 about the delay in releasing the amount. That has not been done. This is deficiency in service. Hence, If we direct certain amount to be paid by the opposite party No.1 and the complainant to opposite party No.2 towards the vehicle loan of the complainant and rest amount to be waived by OP2, we think that will meet the ends of justice. Further even the opposite party No.2 would have written to the complainant stating that the EMIs have not been received by them to that extent it is at fault. Hence some amount has to be waived by the opposite parties also. Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the vehicle loan of the complainant to the Opposite party No.2 within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the said vehicle loan to the opposite party No.2 within 30 days from the date of this order.
4. The opposite party No.2 shall waive the remaining amount of the vehicle loan of the complainant and issue “No Due Certificate” to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
5. The Opposite party No.1 shall repay the amount of Rs.40,000/- which has been withheld from the service benefits of the complainant to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its withholding until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
6. Under these circumstances we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
7. The parties are directed to comply with the above said order and submit the compliance report with necessary documents to this Forum within 45 days from the date of this order.
8. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as Under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
9. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of MARCH 2012)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
