Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/24/2017

G.Maheshappa S/o Ganyanaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The President,Chitradurga Sarvodaya Khadi Gramodaya Sangha - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.K.Veerabhadrappa

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:02.03.2017

DISPOSED      ON:01.12.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 24/2017

 

DATED:  1^st DECEMBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY                :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT	G. Maheshappa, S/o Ganyanaik, Age: 40 Years, Ganjigunte Village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri.K. Veerabhadrappa, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The President, Chitradurga Sarvodaya Khadi Gramodyoga Sangha, Jagalur, Davanagere District.   2. The Secretary, Chitradurga Sarvodaya Khadi Gramodyoga Sangha, Jagalur, Davanagere District.   3. Divisional Manager, Chitradurga Sarvodaya Khadi Gramodyoga Sangha, P.B. Road, Chitradurga.   4. The Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund, Regional Office, Sri Karthik Plaza, II Stage, Durgigudi Main Road, Shimoga-577201.   (Rep by Sri.C.S. Tyagarajan, Advocate for OP No.1 to 3, OP No.4 in person)

ORDER

SRI. T.N.SREENIVASAIAH : PRESIDENT     

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs. 8,00,000/-  with interest @ 12% p.a with cost and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he was working as the Manager with the Chitradurga Sarvodaya Khadi Gramodyoga Sangha, Jagalur for the period from 01.08.1996 to 30.04.2008 i.e., nearly for 11 years was drawing a salary of Rs.3,040/-.  The complainant resigned his job on 30.04.2008 and the same was accepted by the OPs.  The OPs have deducted the PF amount from the complainant for a sum of Rs.3,840/- p.a. nearly for 12 years.  The OPs have to pay a sum of Rs.42,240/- towards PF amount.  It is further submitted that, the OPs have deducted Rs.3,040/- p.a towards gratuity amount about 11 years in all a sum of Rs.33,440/-.  Further the OPs have deducted a sum of Rs.160/- p.m towards security deposit from the salary of the complainant in all OPs have to pay a sum of Rs.21,120/- to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the OPs have to pay bonus amount to the complainant at Rs.3,040/- for 10 years once in all, the OPs have to pay a sum of Rs.33,440/-.  The OPs have to pay increment amount of Rs.110/- p.m in all a sum of Rs.1,210/- to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant prays for allow his complaint.         

3.     After service of notice to the OP No.1 to 3 appeared through Sri. C.S. Tyagarajan, Advocate and filed their version stating that, the complainant was working as the Branch Manager for the period from 1998 to 2008.  It is true that, the complainant was drawing salary of Rs.3,040/- and further the complainant resigned his job on 30.04.2008.  After his resignation, complainant has received all the benefits from the OPs and there is no balance in it.  It is further submitted that, the other allegations made in para 2 to 8 are denied as false.  The complainant is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     OP No.4 appeared in person and filed version stating that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  The complainant is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The allegations made in para 1 to 8 are denied as false.  It is agreed by the OP No.4 that, the complainant was working as the Branch Manager for the period from 1996 to 2008 and further agreed that the complainant was drawing a salary of Rs.3,040/- and rest of the allegations in para 2 to 8 are denied as false and further stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer u/Sec.3(a) of the C.P Act. Hence, prayed for dismissal.     

5.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on the documents like Ex.A-1 to A-15.  One behalf of OP No.1 to 3 one Sri. Ravi, the Secretary of OP No.2 has examined as RW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on the document like Ex.B-1 and closed their side.  OP No.4 has not filed any documents before this Forum and not come forward to give any evidence. 

6.     Arguments heard on both sides. 

7.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP No.1 to 3 have jointly and severally liable to settle the claim of the complainant as prayed in the complaint?

(2) What order?

8.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

9.     It is not in dispute that, complainant was working as the Branch Manager with OP No.1 to 3 for the period from 1996 to 2008 and drawing a salary of Rs.3,040/- p.m.  OP No.1 to 3 have deducted the PF, security deposit amount, gratuity amount and further the OPs are liable to pay bonus amount.  OPs are also liable to grant increment amount to the complainant every year.  Accordingly, the OPs 1 to 3 have deducted Rs.3,040/- p.a towards gratuity amount from the salary of the complainant and the OPs are liable to pay Rs.33,440/- to the complainant as per Ex.A-11 to A-14.  OP No.1 to 3 have deducted Rs.160/- p.m from the salary of the complainant for security deposit amount for 11 years.  Complainant has paid Rs.320/- p.m towards PF amount therefore, the OP No.1 to 3 have to pay Rs.42,240/- and OPs are liable to pay Rs.33,440/- towards bonus amount and Rs.1,210/- towards increment amount and the security deposit for a sum of Rs.21,120/-.  As per the exhibits, it clearly shows that, the complainant is entitled for an amount as stated in his complaint.  The OPs No.1 to 3 have deducted the amount from the salary of the complainant, if the same was sent to the PF office, the complainant is entitled for pension benefit.  But, the OPs 1 to 3 have misused the same.   

10.   We have gone through the entire pleadings, documents and affidavits filed by both the parties.  As per exhibits, it clearly goes to show that, the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,31,450/- from the OP No.1 to 3.  The complainant already received an amount of Rs.23,000/-, the same is to be deducted from the above said amount.  The remaining amount of Rs.1,08,450/- along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of deduction from the salary of the complainant.    The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of pension benefits.  In all the complainant is entitled for Rs.2,08,450/-.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs 1 to 3.  The complaint as against OP No.4 is liable to be dismissed because, OP No.1 to 3 have deducted the amount from the salary of the complainant but, they have not send the same to the OP No.4.  Hence, OP No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

 

          11.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,450/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of deduction of the amount from the salary of the complainant till realization.

 It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of pension benefit.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The complaint filed as against OP No.4 is dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 01/12/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

                                     

 MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

RW-1: Sri. Ravi, the Secretary of OP No.2 by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Form-A under RTI
02	Ex.A-2:-	Postal order
03	Ex.A-3:-	Form-A under RTI
04	Ex.A-4:-	Form-A under RTI
05	Ex.A-5:-	Postal Orders
06	Ex.A-6 and 7:-	2 Courier Receipts
07	Ex.A-8:-	Postal order
08	Ex.A-9:-	Form-A under RTI
09	Ex.A-10:-	Statement of deduction towards PF for the year 2004-05
10	Ex.A-11:-	Statement of deduction towards PF for the year 2005-06
11	Ex.A-12:-	Statement of deduction towards PF for the year 2006-07
12	Ex.A-13:-	Statement of deduction towards staff security deposit for the year 2005-06
13	Ex.A-14:-	Statement of deduction towards PF for the year 2007-08
14	Ex.A-15:-	Statement of deduction towards staff security deposit for the year 2006-07

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Letter given by complainant to OP 1 to 3

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**