SMT. G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s case is that the first complainant was one of the subscribers in Chitty No.16/01 vide Chital No.18 and she availed a loan of Rs.19,000/- from the first opp.party, that the 2nd complainant who is none other than the husband of the first complainant stood as surety to the above loan transaction producing his salary certificate who is an employee of KSRTC, that the loan fell in arrears because of the illness of the 2nd complainant, that while so, the first opp.party has issued notice intimating the OTS facility available to them, that on 22.11.2006 the 2nd complainant has remitted the entire amount and closed the transaction, that meanwhile in March 2005 the first opp.party has recovered Rs.2,000/- from the salary of the 2nd complainant, through ATO., KSRTC, Karunagappally, that the 2nd complainant informed the first opp.party to refund the above Rs.2000/- that the first opp.party informed him that no such recovery effected and no amount received there, that on the other hand KSRTC, Karunagappally issued a letter to the 2nd complainant stating that KSTRC recovered Rs.2000/- from the salary of the 2nd complainant and forwarded to the first opp.party on 26..4..2005 that for getting the above Rs.2,000/- refunded the 2nd complainant went to KSTRC, Karunagappally and KSFE, Sasthakottah up and down on so many occasions but all are in vein, that certificate showing that the loan was closed also not issued by the opp.party and because of this the complainants are suffering much mental agony and so they are entitled to get compensation also along with refund of the above amount with interest and costs.
opp.parties 1 and 2 filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and admitting that the first complainant was a subscriber in chitty No.16/01 vide chital No.18 with the 1st opp.party and she availed a chitty loan of Rs.19,000/- on 1..2..2002 vide NCL No.1661 on the strength of personal surety of John, the 2nd complainant, that after availing loan, the complainants have remitted loan interest upto 30..6..2002 and thereafter committed default in repayments, and further contended that since the complainants committed default in repayment the first opp.party has issued notices on 10..4..2003, 24..12..2003, 26..12..2003, 15..3..2004 and on 9..7..2004 directing them to repay the loan amount at the earliest, but they did not turn up to settle the dues and hence the first opp.party has issued salary recovery requisitions to the ATO., KSRTC., Karunagappaly, that again on 11..1..2006, reminder was issued to the drawing officer and since no amount was received from the salary recovery on 25..9..2006, the first opp.party has issued notice intimating the OTS facility available to them, that on 30..9..2006, Revenue Recovery notice was also issued against the complainant, that on 22..11..2006 the 2nd complainant has remitted the entire amount and closed the transaction, that thereafter on perusal it is found that an amount of Rs..75/- remains as dues and then the 1st opp.party informed him the matter, and then the 2nd complainant informed the 1st opp.party that an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been recovered from his salary by ATO., KSRTC, Karunagappally, but on verification in the account, no amount was seen recovered as informed by the 2nd complainant and then the first opp.party has verified the suspense account and found that an amount of Rs.2000/- is kept in suspense account, that this was happened due to the non mentioning of the chitty number, chital number etc and no default was committed by the first opp.party, that the opp.parties have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opp.parties.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or default on the part of the opp.parties?
2. Reliefs and costs?
For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Ext. P1 to P6
For the opp.party DWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ext. D1 to D8 and X1 to X4.
POINTS:
It is the admitted case of the parties that the first complainant was one of the subscribers in Chitty No.16/2001 vide Chital No.18 and she availed a loan vide NCL No.1661 for Rs.19,000/- from the first opp.party with 2nd complainant as surety. The loan fell in arrears. According to the first opp.party, the first opp.party issued so many notices to the complainants and since they have not turned up lastly issued salary recovery requisition to ATO., Karunagappally and since no amount was received from the salary recovery on 25.9.2006 the first opp.party has issued notice intimating the OTS facility available to them. On 30.9.2006, Revenue Recovery notice also issued against the complainants. On 22.11.2006 the 2nd complainant has remitted the entire amount and closed the transaction Then the 2nd complainant informed that an amount of Rs.2000/- has been recovered from his salary by the ATO, KSRTC., Karunagappally. But on verification, no amount was seen recovered. Thereafter on 26.7.2007 it is came to the notice of the first opp.party that an amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered by the ATO, Karunagappally on 26.4.2005 and remittance was made in suspense account and this was happened due to the latches committed by the ATO, Karunagappally by not noting the chitty number or NCL number and there is no default or deficiency in service on the part of the first opp.party.
With the available evidence, let us, examine whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the first opp.party. In this case 2nd complainant was examined as PW1. He would swear before the forum in tune with the allegations in the complaint. Nothing was brought out in his cross examination to discredit the witness Ext.P1 receipt would show that the complainants have remitted Rs.28956/- on 22.11.2006 in the KSFE Sasthacotta towards NCL 1661. It is the version of the opp.party that by remitting the above amount the complainants have closed the transaction. Ext.P2 would show that Rs.2000/- deducted from the salary of the 2nd complainant for the month march 2005 by KSRTC., Karunagapaly and forwarded to KSFE , Sasthmkotta. Ext P3, is a certificate issued by ATO., Karunagappally on 13.12.2006 stating the above recovery on 26..4..2005, Ext.P4 is an intimation from the first opp.party to the first complainant intimating the OTS facility available her, Ext.P5 is a letter which shows that on 29..11.2006 first opp.party endorsed “no recovery was effected so far”, Ext.P6 is the letter dated 6..2.07 from the first opp.party to the first complainant stating that the above recovered amount is in suspense account and now it has been transferred to her account.
First opp.party was examined as DW.1, DTO, Karunagappally was examined as DW.2 , Ext. D1 series are notices dated 10..4..03, and 24..12.2003 issued by the first opp.party to the first complainant calling upon her to close the transaction, Ext. D2 series are recovery notices dated 26..12..2003 ,15..3..2004 and 9.7.2004 issued by first opp.party to the ATO., KSRTC, Karunagappally requesting for recovery from the salary of 2nd complainant at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and to remit the amount direct to them. Ext.D3 is letter dated 11.1.2006 addressed to the ATO., KSRTC. Karunagappally requesting recovery of a sum of Rs.1000/- from the salary of 2nd complainant. Ext. D4 is notice intimating the OTS facility available to the complainants. Ext. D5 is revenue recovery notice dated 30..9..2006 , Ext. D6 is a letter dated 16.10.2006 by the 2nd complainant to the first opp.party requesting 30 days time to close the transaction. Ext. D7 is intimation letter dated 27..4..2005 which shows that Rs.2000/- remitted as per Chelan No 4095 on 27..4..05 after recovery of the same from the salary of 2nd complainant. Ext. D8 is the photocopy of Ext.P6, X1 to X4 are the extract of statements showing allowances and recoveries of 2nd complainant produced by DTO, Karunagappally who was examined as DW.2
Here the loan transaction and the remittance of entire amount are admitted. Then the only question to be considered is whether the case of the 2nd complainant that Rs.2000/- recovered from his salary on 27.4.2005 by the ATO, Karunagappally and forwarded the same to the first opp.party and the 1st opp.party has not deducted that amount in the loan and even after closing the transaction when it was brought to the notice of the first opp.party and demanded refund the first opp.party vehemently opposed the same stating that no such recovery effected and no amount came in their account. When Ext. D7 is brought to the notice of DW.1, he would swear before the forum that “ Llgksm Cr\exA recoversvu\fk tr\rk eyB\Bj}kn\mk\ OTSH Tmelm\ fJGf\fk.”Further down he would swear before the forum that “Ext.P5 H recovery effect svu\fj}jh\h tr\r endorsementtsRyflnk\ . Further down he has stated that SElyf\fjH rjr\rk Srl}jc\ ssdeMjuSC,alnk\ recover svu\f fkd f jgjv\vkrHdlsar\rk eyB\Bfk\ Ext.D7 would show that an amount of Rs.2000/- was recovered by ATO., Karunagappaly and it was received there on 27..4..2005 and credited to current account. DW.2 also admitted about the recovery of the above Rs.2000/- from the salary of the 2nd complainant, on 27..4..2005 as per the request of the first opp.party which was remitted in the office of the opp.party. In effecting the recovery as per the request of the opp.party there is no latches on the part of the KSRTC the name of the defaulter is there in Ext. D7 and as I have already mentioned the amount is seen credited to their current account and no in suspense account as contended. So taking the evidence as a whole we have no hesitation to safely conclude that the opp.parties have committed deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opp.parties to refund the above Rs.2000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 27.4.2005 to the complainants. Opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and cost Rs.1,000/- to the complainants. The order is to be complied with within 30 days and in default the amount of compensation and cost also carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of order.
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2012.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – John
List of documents for the complainant
P1. Receipt dated 22.11.2006
P2. – Recovery slip dated 22.3.2005
P3. – Certificate dated 13..12..2006
P4. – Notice from opp.party
P5. – Endorsement from opp.party dated 29..11..2006
P6. – Letter from opp.party dated 6..2..2007
List of witnesses for the opp.parties
DW.1. - M.K. Kumari Thankam
DW.2. – P.J. Lucose
List of documents for the opp.parties
D1. – Copy of notice
D2. – Copy of Notice [3 Nos]
D3. – Letter dated 11.1.2006
D4. – Notice dated 25..9..2006
D5. –R.R. Notice
D6. – Application
D7. – Collection advice
D8. – Letter dated 6..2..2007
X1 to X4: Extract of Statements
