Complaint filed on: 17-10-2011
Disposed on: 14-03-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.1898/2011
DATED THIS THE 14th MARCH 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainants: -
1. H.M.Kumaraswamy
Conductor, Token no.2315,
Kanakapura Depot,
Bangalore Rural District
2. P.Siddappa
Traffic Controller,
KBS Division, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-27
V/s
Opposite parties: -
1. The Secretary
KSRTC Employees Credit
Co-operative Society Ltd,
KH Road, Bangalore 27
2. The Accounts Officer,
KSRTC, Bangalore Central
Division, Bangalore-27
O R D E R
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER.
The complaint filed by complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Ops that the complainant was working as a conductor in KSRTC Kanakapura Division (Token no. 2315) Bangalore Rural and he was a member of Op 1 and availed loan of Rs.10,000/- on 30/10/1998 from Op 1 Society. The complainant 1 submitted that there was enquiry against the complainant 1 and as a result he was dismissed from the work illegally. At the same time they adjusted the loan amount along with entire accrued interest in all amounting Rs.12,000/- from the gratuity amount of the complainant and balance amount of gratuity was paid through cheque bearing no. 104933 dated 15/11/2001 for a sum of Rs.12,000/- The illegal dismissal was challenged by the complainant 1 before Labour court. As per the award passed by the Labour Court he was reinstated into service. Thereafter complainant 1 received demand letter dated 5/8/2008 through his employer stating that he is still due for Rs.25,000/- towards loan and interest which he was availed from the society. On receipt of demand notice of Op, the complainant 1 was shocked and replied to the notice stating that he has already paid the loan amount with interest of Rs.12,000/- which has been deducted in the gratuity amount before disbursing the gratuity amount to him. Eventhough he requested to furnish the details about his loan account. For which the complainant 1 came to know from his employer i.e Accounts Officer who is Op 2 in this complaint that the amount of Rs.12,000/- deducted from the complainant’s gratuity was wrongly remitted to the account of one Sri. R.Govind Raju through the letter of Op 2 dated 12/8/2004 addressed to Op1. In that letter Op 2 requested op 1 to adjust the said amount of Rs.12,000/- to complainant 1’s account. But OP 1 neglected to adjust it instead Op 1 sent demand notice to the complainant 1 and illegally demanding to pay the loan amount with interest of Rs.25,000/-. Ops started deducting the amount in the salary of complainant 1 and also in the surety who is the complainant no. 2 in this complaint. For that complainant issued legal notice to the Op1 dated 11/12/2009 which was duly served on op 1. Op 1 neither replied to the notice nor stopped deducting the loan amount in the salary of both the complainants. Hence, they approached the forum seeking direction to issue NOC from Op, direction to pay back the amount collected from the salary of complainant. 2 and Rs.1,00,000 compensation to him, Rs.1,00,000/- compensation to complainant 1 for mental agony caused due to deficiency in service of ops and other relief.
2. Notice sent to Op 1 and 2 through RPAD which were duly served on Ops. The Op 1 represented in person and Op 2 represented through his advocate. They filed their statement of objections. Op 1 submitted in his objection that the loan amount with interest is deducted from the terminal benefits towards repayment in respect of complainant 1’s loan account, it has been wrongly sent to Op1 by his employer i.e Op 2 for being credited to the loan account of one Sri.R.Govindraju including sum of Rs. 6,000/-. Since Rs. 12,000/- was excess in the loan account of Sri. Govindraju was refunded to his legal heirs by Op 1 though op 2 wrote a letter dated 12/8/2004 to Op1 to adjust Rs. 12,000/- to the loan account of the complainant 1. Hence, it is not the fault of Op 1, Op 2 has committed mistake for which Op 2 is only liable and not the Op 1. In the version he also contended that the transaction took place in the year 2004, demand notice for the payment of Rs. 25,000 has been sent in the year on 5/8/2008. Thus the present complainant is barred by the limitation and prays to dismiss the complaint. He also admitted that after termination of complainant 1 from the service, the sum of Rs. 2,100/- was deducted out of salary of complainant 2 who was surety to the loan availed by the complainant 1 at the rate of Rs.300/- per month for 7 months. Since, a sum of Rs. 26,400/- is due from the complainant 1 under his loan account, Op1 is not able to issue NOC till he repay his loan with interest. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service of op 1 and not liable to pay any compensation. Op 2, has taken contention that there is no relation of consumer and service provide between the complainant and Op 2. Therefore, it does not attract under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act. Secondly, the complaint is filed after lapse of 8 years which can be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Op 2 admitted that the complainant was an employee of Op 2 and also a member of Op 1.The loan availed from the Op 1 and also the loan amount with interest was deducted from his terminal benefits on 15/11/2001 are undisputed by both the Op’s. Op 2 also admitted that while passing on such amount to Op 1 towards closure of loan account of the complainant 1, Op 2 mentioned the name of one Sri.Govindraju instead of the name of complainant 1. There was no intentional and deliberate act behind it but Op 2 intimated the same in later stage i.e on 12/8/2004 by issuing a letter to Op 1. Op 1 committed mistake and could not rectify the mistake even after the intimation given to him. The complainant also failed to procure the NOC from the Op 1 immediately after the deduction of amount. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op 2, and he is not liable to any short comings. Op 2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint and Mr.K.Vishwanath, a secretary, KSRTC Employees Credit Co-operative Society Limited filed an affidavit on behalf of Op1, Mr. Munirajappa, an account officer KSRTC Central Division, filed an affidavit on behalf of Op 2 reproducing what they have stated in their versions.
4. The complainant along with his complaint produced copies of documents like copy of letter dated 12/8/2004 addressed to Op 1 by Op 2, letter written by complainant to Op 1 dated 26/4/2007 & 26/7/2008 which were acknowledged by Op 1, letter issued by Op 1 to Op 2 dated 5/8/2008, letter written by the complainant addressed to Divisional Controller, central division dated 5/8/2008, Op1 issued letter to op2 dated 11/10/2004, a copy of legal notice issued to Op 1 dated11/12/2009 and it’s acknowledgement, copy of pay slips pertaining to complainant no 1 and 2 for January 2011. Along with affidavit, Op 1 produced copies of letters what the complainant has produced and letter issued to Op 1 by Divisional Controller dated 30/9/2008, a copy of ledger pertaining to the complainant 1 and calculation copy. Op 2 has produced citation based on limitation. We have heard the counsels for complainant and Op 1 and 2 and perused the records and written arguments filed by both the parties.
5. On the above materials, following points arise for determination.
1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in service in claiming further payments towards loan even after closure of loan account?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
6. Our finds on the above points are;
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: See the Final order
REASONS
7. Answer on Point No.1: After going through the submission of both parties, there is no dispute that the complainant 1 has availed the loan on 30/10/1998 from Op1 and the same has been deducted from his terminal benefit after he was dismissed from the service in the year 2001. Both Op’s admitted these two points. Even Op 1 admitted that after his intimation regarding the loan amount of complainant 1 to be paid, Op 2 deducted the same from the terminal benefit of the complainant 1 based on the information given by op1. After deduction, Op 2 sent the amount in two cheques since Op 1 has intimated about two transactions in the same covering letter regarding liabilities of two members. One for Rs.6,000/- in the name of Sri Govindraju who was another member of Op1 and another for Rs.12,000/- wrongly sent again in the name of Sri.Govindraju instead of Sri.Kumarswamy i.e complainant 1. Hence, the amount of complainant 1 was also credited to Sri.Govindraju’s account instead of complainant 1’s account. Op 1 submitted that when he found the excess amount of Rs.12,000/- in the name of Sri. Govindraju, they refunded it to the legal heirs of deceased Govindraju. It is the fault of Op 1 before clearing the account and without verifying the liability of individual they have disbursed the amount to the legal heirs of deceased Sri.Govindraju.
8. After realizing the mistake that the amount of complainant 1 has been credited to the account of another employee of Op 2, Op 2 has issued letter on 12/8/2004 to Op 1 stating that the cheque no.104933 dated 15/11/2001 was wrongly remitted to your society in respect of Sri.Govindraju which is supposed to be in the name of Sri.Kumarswamy. Op 2 requested Op1 to adjust an amount of Rs.12,000/- to complainant 1 in the said letter. In pursuance to that, Op 1 replied to Op2 in the letter dated 11/10/2004 that the excess amount of Rs12,000/- has been refunded to the legal heirs of Sri.Govindraju. Hence, the due amount in respect of complainant 1 is still pending.
9. Regarding that the complainant wrote letters to Op1 dated 26/4/2007 & 26/7/2008 which were acknowledged by Op 1. Op 1 has neither replied to those letters nor issued NOC which was sought in the said letters of the complainant no.1. Since the complainant 1 has paid his entire amount to Op1 in the year 2001 which was admitted by both Op 1 and 2 orally at the time of arguments and Op 2 also admitted in their version and written arguments. But Op1 has admitted the payment from complainant 1 but for the mistake of Op 2 made him to demand again from the complainant 1 and not otherwise. Therefore, the loan account of complainant 1 is still pending and accrued amount is of Rs.26,400/-. Considering all these, the complainant 1has made the payment towards his loan amount and interest part from his terminal benefits, and he is not liable to pay again. Although Op 2 intimated through his letter dated 12/8/2004 stating that the amount of Rs.12,000/- has been wrongly sent in the name of Sri.Govindraju instead of Sri.Kumarswamy, Op1 still not corrected the mistake instead he is demanding the loan amount with interest from 1998 till now Rs.26,400/- only on the ground that the wrongly paid amount by Op2 has been disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.Govindraju. But we found there is no justification to collect again from the complainant 1 on that ground because why should complainant 1 pay for no fault of him?
10. Only Op 1 and 2 have made mistake and penalized the complainant 1 which is not fair at all. Op 1 is orally admitting that the terminal benefit has excluded the loan account of complainant 1 while he was terminated from the service but he is still demanding the loan amount with interest after his reinstatement in his version and written arguments. What is all due to the amount is not credited to the complainant 1’s account. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of Op 1 and 2 both. For that they have to compensate the complainant 1.
11. Although every facts are known to Op 1, he has deducted the loan amount of complainant 1 from the salary of complainant 2 who was surety which is not proper on the part of Op 1. Op 2 is an employer of complainant 1 and 2, on which basis he has deducted the salary of complainant 2 is not produced before the forum. Without the instructions of Op1, the salary of complainant 2 can not be deducted towards loan account of complainant 1. Therefore, Op 1 and 2 have caused deficiency in service by deducting the loan amount in the salary of complainant 2 that too after closure of loan account in the year 2001 itself. For that both have to compensate to the complainant 2. Therefore, we are of the view that Op 1 and 2 have caused deficiency in service by demanding the loan amount with accrued interest of Rs.26,400/- from complainant 1 though the account has been closed in 2001 and deducted amount in the salary of complainant 2 in 2011. Therefore, in our view that allegations against Op’s are proved by the complainant that the claim of loan and interest by Op 1 is illegal and he is entitled for compensation. Accordingly we answer point no.1 in affirmative and proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
Complaint is allowed.
Op 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and hardship to the complainant no.1.
Op 1 and 2 are jointly liable to reimburse the amount collected towards loan account after 15/11/2001 from the salary of complainant 1 and 2 with interest @ 10% p.a from the date of respective deductions, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Op 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and hardship to complainant no.2.
Op 1 is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards cost.
Failing which, Op 1 and 2 shall pay interest @ 12%p.a from the date of this order till realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 14th March 2012.
Member Member President
