JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Vijaybaskar against Opposites 1 & 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the Ops to pay compensation amount of Rs. 35,285=92 ps with 18% pm interest with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstance of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he is an Bank employee he applied for loan to Employee Provident Fund, office amount sent Bellary, as per his application an amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- was sanctioned and said by cheque dated 28-8-08 he sent said cheque to Opp No1, to adjust it is his loan account , but it sent to Op No. 2 and in turn he informed to take a blank cheque from the said Act Op No. 1, he paid interest of Rs. 10,053/- for a period of 4 months to Op No.1 for non collecting the said amount and delay in adjusting the cheque amount to his loan account without any reasons. He also suffered loss of Rs. 6616/- towards interest in Employment Provident Found account for 4 months they have also charged fore closer charges at the rate of 2.21/-. Which works out to 7,616=92/- contrary to the terms and conditions of the lone agreement. Hence this case is filed by him for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 3. Opposite No. 1 & 2 appeared in this case, filed the i.e. written versions by admitting the receipt of cheque for Rs. 2,34,000/- from PF Office Bellary payable at Bellary Branch it sent the said cheque to op No. 1 for collation in the month of December 2008, 14 days time is required for to collect the amount of out stationed cheque. Four closer charge is charged as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, it not liable to pay interest of Rs. 6,616/-. There is no deficiency in service and prayed for to dismiss the complaint. 4. In view of the pleadings of the parties, now the points that, arise for our consideration and determination are that, 1. whether the complainant proves that, opposites No. 1 & 2 shown their negligence in collecting the cheque amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- of employment Provident Fund office at Bellary by taking 4 months to credit the amount to his loan account, charged higher rate of interest with regard to Fore closer charge contrary to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in services? 2 whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint? 3. what Order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) Partly inn affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgment and as stated in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO. 1& 2. 6. In order to prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit evidence of complaint was filed, he was noted as PW-1 and also filed his additional affidavit, documents Ex P 1 to Ex P 5 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit evidence of the Manager of opposite No. 2 was filed who is noted as RW-1, document Ex R. 1 is marked. 7. It is an admitted fact that, Opposite No. 1 received cheque for Rs. 2,34,000/- dated 28-08-08 to adjust the said amount in the loan account of complainant. But, he not taken credit of that, amount and adjusted it to the loan account of complainant, its sent to said cheque to Op No. 2. Ultimately the cheque amount of Rs. 2,34,000/- was adjusted to the loan account of complainant on 5-1-09. Therefore, there was delay of 4 months to adjust the said amount to the loan account of complainant. Reasons shown for such delay committed by opposites not accepted as it was delayed more than 14 days, as such there is clear cut negligence of opposites in getting encashment from Bellay office, they made the complainant to pay interest on the said amount of rs. 2,34,000/- to the opposites without his fault. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposits. 8. Complainant claimed interest of Rs. 6616/- as charged by the PF office on the said amount cannot be accepted as he entitled to get interest of Rs. 10,053/- on the cheque amount of rs. 2,34,000/- for delayed period of 4 months. Hence he cannot be benefited for twice, hence this claim is rejected. Complainant is claiming that, Opposites charged illegally an amount, of rs. 7619/-92.ps as Fore closer charges contrary to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. We have perused the entire documents of the parties and we are of the opinion that, he is not entitled for such claim accordingly, it is rejected. We have noticed the deficiency in service on the part of Op No. 1 & 2, accordingly we have granted lump sum of Rs. 3,000/- under this head, which is recoverable by the complainant from Op No. 1 & 2. At the same time we have granted anther lump sum amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation. Therefore, complainant is totally entitled for Rs. 15,053/- which is rounded to Rs. 15,000/- from opposites No. 1 & 2 joint and severely. Accordingly we are answered point No. 1 & 2. POINT NO. 3. In view of the findings on point Nos. 1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant to entitled to recover total amount of rs. 15,000/- from Opposites Nos 1 & 2 jointly and severely. Opposites No. 1& 2 are hereby granted one month time to pay the said amount to the complainant from the date of this order. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-01-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
