BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR. COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 119/06. THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH 2008. P R E S E N T 1. Sri. N.H.Savalagi, B.A.LLB. (Spl) PRESIDENT. 2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER. 3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER. COMPLAINANT :- H. Thippaiah S/o. Hanumappa, aged about 54 years, Occ: Retired Mechanical Shunter (V.R.) DLI Office, Raichur Present residing at: Hosur Village, Tq. & Dist: Raichur. //VERSUS// RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, South Central Railway, Guntakal (A.P.). 2.The Secretary, south central Railway Employees Co-op Credit Society Ltd., Himayatnagar, Secunderabad- 500025. 3.The Diesel Loco Inspector, South Central Railway, Loco Shed, Raichur. CLAIM :- For direction to Respondent No. 1 to 3 to disburse the amount of Rs. 26,198/- along with admissible interest. The interest shall be paid on 41.340/- from 31-01-05 to 20-05-06 and for awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and awarding Rs. 15,000/- towards damages & Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. Date of institution :- 29-08-06. Notice served :- 08-11-06. Date of disposal :- 25-03-08. Complainant represented by Sri. H. Narasappa, Advocate. Respondent No- 1 & 3 represented by Sri. D.Suresh, Advocate. Respondent No-2 represented by Sri. K.Ramanujacharya, Advocate. ----- This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following. JUDGEMENT This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant H.Thippaiah against Respondents (1) Senior Divisional Personal Officer, South Central Railway Guntakal, (2) Secretary, South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Himmathnagar, Secunderabad. (3) Diesel Loco Inspector, South Central Railway, Loco Shed, Raichur for deficiency in service in not settling his claim. The brief facts of the complainant as under: The complainant is a voluntarily retired mechanical Shunter (VR) DLI Office, Raichur Ticker No. 361, PR.No. 03817635. He worked in South Central Railway since 05-11-1977 to 31-01-2005 under Respondent No-1. who is a drawing officer as well as appointing authority. The Respondent No-2 is a Secretary, South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Himathnagar Secunderabad. Respondent NO-3 was his immediate officer. During his service the complainant has become a member of the Respondent No-2 society by paying share amount. The Respondent NO-2 allotted him Membership No. CMTD/148776. The Respondent NO-1 deducted monthly premium during his entire service and remitted to the account of Respondent NO-2. As per the guidelines of Respondents No-1 and 3, Respondent No-2 was running the society informing all the facts about deductions and services, as such all the Respondents are jointly responsible for all the lapses. Due to voluntary retirement, the complainant has got admissible service retirement benefits from Respondent No- 1 & 3. Accordingly Respondent NO-1 has given payment particulars of benefits of Rs. 41,340/- towards CCS/SC. But they have not settled the due payable to him. As per information received by him from Respondent NO-3 the amount of Rs. 41,340/- was with-held and in-spite of his several requests and demands since one year no action has been taken by Respondent No- 1 & 2. So the complainant has sent a letter dt. 20-01-06 through Respondent No-3 and legal notice dt. 25-04-06 to the Respondents 1 & 2 by RPAD but all the efforts went in vain. The officials of society and D.P.O. always orally giving false replies and assurance & postponing the same on one or the other pretext. The non-disbursement of admissible benefits to him within three months is against the law and liable for damages. There is no balance payable towards loan account of complainant with Respondents No. 1 & 3. This complainant during his service had offered surety to his colleague employee Ravi Prakash and R.Rajamani who were also member of Respondent No-2 Society bearing Membership NO. 142720 & 142703 respectively. The said Ravi Prakash had cleared off the loan. The said R.Rajamani had taken voluntary retirement and retired on 30-11-04 vide office memorandum No. GP/579/1/COmmal/Catg dt. 16-11-04. The dues if any from R.Rajamani who retired earlier to this complainant ought to have been recovered out of retirement benefits of this R.Rajamani as per Rules. But this complainant has received a cheque on 20-05-06 only for Rs. 14,142/- instead of Rs. 41,340/-. Therefore the complainant again issued legal notice by RPAD to Respondents 1 to 3 for payment of remaining balance amount of Rs. 26,198/- with interest. In response to the said notice dt. 25-07-06, the Respondent No-1 replied that he has deducted Rs. 11,128/- as surety liability of R.Rajamani who had taken voluntary retirement. This R.Rajamani retired earlier to this complainant so it was the duty of the Respondents to recover the said amount from R.Rajamani but instead of that they have deducted from his retirement benefits. Hence they are liable for refund of the said amount. To get the settlement the complainant requested the Respondents several times and got issued legal notice to all the Respondent but no proper reply was received and the amount which is payable to him was not paid. Therefore the above activities of respondents No- 1 to 3 clearly show their negligence, lapses and deficiency in service. So he had suffered heavy loss of pain for which the Respondents are liable to answer Hence for all these reasons he has sought for direction to Respondent No. 1 to 3 to disburse the amount of Rs. 26,198/- along with admissible interest. The interest shall be paid on 41,340/- from 31-01-05 to 20-05-06 and for awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and awarding Rs. 15,000/- towards damages & Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. 2. In response to service of notice Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent NO-1 has filed written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-3. Respondent No-2 has filed a separate written version. 3. In the written version Respondent No-1 and 3 have contended that as per the consent of working employees, the recovery is affected towards monthly share amount and loan recovery if any loan is availed from Respondent No-2 society. Respondent No-2 society is running as per the laws and by-laws set by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies but not on the guidelines of these Respondents 1 & 3 as alleged. There are separate set of guidelines for the society. The complainant was paid all his due, retirement benefits after duly recovering the amount due to the Railway Administration and to the Credit society. The amounts which are due to Credit Society by the complainant has to be recovered and to be sent to the Credit Society. According to the advise/directions on Secretary of that society the amount has been recovered and even sent to the society. This Respondent is in no way concerned and responsible regarding the said recovery. The recovery amount was Co-operative Credit Society loan this Respondent will have to act as per the direction of Respondent NO-2. This Respondent will not affect any recovery from the salary or from the other benefits of his own. The loan is being affected by the Respondent NO-2 only duly filled in data computers. The complainant was fully acquainted with all relevant facts and bye-laws of the society and its system of functioning. He also knows that this Respondent NO-1 is no way concerned to the management, affairs and business of Respondent No-2. In-spite of these things in his knowledge the complainant un-necessarily filed this complaint who are not necessary parties. No cause of action has occurred to the complainant to file this complaint. Hence for all these reasons they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Respondent NO-2 in his written statement has contended that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency of service against the Respondent NO-2 so the complaint is not maintainable. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as per section 11 of C.P.Act as the Registered office of Respondent NO-2 is situated at Secunderabad (AP). Even as per section 84 of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 2002 this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint since complainant is a shareholder of Respondent NO-2 Credit Society as such any dispute that may arise has to be referred to the Arbitration of Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies. While settling the case of complainant at the time of his retirement, his liability were Rs. 44,498/- and Assets were only 17,300/- excluding DCRG 41,340/. (as detailed in Para-8(a) of written version) The shareholder’s claim for Rs. 41,340/- has been with held is in-correct. Since he is due to the Respondent No-2 society, so after adjusting his Assets & Liabilities as stated above he was paid an amount of Rs. 14,142/- for which he is eligible after taking into consideration the amount received from DCRG. This Respondent has no information from Railways that Smt. R.Rajamani, Assistant Cook VRR/Raichur had taken voluntary retirement with effect from 30-11-04 vide Memorandum dt. 16-11-04 as copy is not addressed to Respondent No-2 society. Basing on the legal notice dt. 25-04-06 it had come to the notice of this Respondent that the complainant Thippaiah and Smt. R.Rajamani have taken VRS with effect from 31-01-05 & 30-11-04 respectively. The society letter No. CCS/Sett dues/18/8665/G/5/2006/ dt. 10-05-06 addressed to the senior DPO Guntakal for recovery of CCS dues from Smt. R.Rajamani with a copy to senior DFM Guntakal for information and necessary action is submitted to the District Forum Raichur. The case was settled on 12-05-06 and a cheque was printed on 24-05-06 and the same was sent to shareholder/applicant. Hence allegations as made in para-4 of the complaint are contrary to the above and are denied. Smt. R.Rajamani’s case was closed on 09-05-06 duly informing the CCI/SCR/South Central Railway Secunderabad with a copy to R.Rajamani Surety Sri Narasimhalu KHLPR/D/o.SSE/C&W/Raichur was advised vide our letter dt. 09-05-06 that 50% of the surety liabilities of R.Rajamani is adjusted from his Assets, with a copy to the other sureties (a) Sri. S.K. Khaja Hussain, Senior L.R. Porter, Office of Station Master Raichur. (b) H.Thippaiah Shunter, O/o DLI/ Raichur. Hence allegations made in para-5 of the complaint are all false and denied. The legal notice dt. 25-07-06 which was received (by Post) by Society was replied vide letter No. CCS/18/664/G/5/006 dt. 01-08-06 duly giving his Assets & Liabilities position. The information in connection with the voluntary retirement of Smt. R.Rajamani & complainant H.Thippaiah was not communicated to the society in time and this can be seen from the Memo No. G/P.179/I/Comml/Catge dt. 16-11-04. Hence there is no possibility of creating mental torture, agony and harassment to the shareholder. Therefore the allegations made in para-7 are denied. As per the eligibility basing on the Assets & Liabilities of H.Thippaiah shown earlier, the case was finalized and paid the amount of Rs. 14,142/- for which he was eligible. Hence for all these reasons the Respondent No-2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 5. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In-rebuttal sworn-affidavit of Assistant Divisional Personal Officer, South Central Railway Guntakal has been filed on behalf of Respondent No- 1 & 3. Similarly the affidavit of Secretary South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Secunderabad has been filed by way of examination-in-chief for Respondent No-2. On behalf of complainant (15) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15 were got marked and seven documents at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-7 were got marked for Respondents. It is to be noted that as stated in Para-2 of the judgement, in-response to service of notice of this Forum on 08-11-06 Respondent NO-2 appeared in person and filed power of his lawyer Sri. K.Ramanujacharya Advocate (A.P). On 01-12-06 the official of Respondent NO-2 appeared and filed written version/counter to the complainant of Respondent No-2. Thereafter on 07-12-06 Sri. Gururaj Kulkarni Advocate (who is present Member of the Forum) filed vakalat for Respondent No-2 along with K.Ramanujacharya Advocate on record. During the pendency of this case Sri. Gururaj Kulkarni has been appointed as member of this Forum and joined on 30-09-07. On 19-09-07 one P.Chandra Rao Office Superintendent of Respondent No-2 Society appeared and filed adjournment application for time to appoint one local Advocate in place of their earlier Advocate who has given no objection to appoint their counsel and accordingly time granted and case posted to 04-10-07. On 04-10-07 neither Respondent NO-2 nor any one on his behalf appeared and represented, so as a last chance the case adjourned to 08-10-07. From 08-10-07 throughout no one is representing Respondent No.2. Hence heard the final arguments of the counsel for complainant and counsel for Respondent No-1 & 3. Perused the records. 6. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and by virtue of section 84 of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act 2002 as contended by Respondent No-2.?. 2.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged.? 3.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 7.Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the negative. 2.In the affirmative. 3.As per final order for the following. 8.It is worthwhile to note here that when the case set down for orders, Sri. Gururaj Kulkarni Member of this Forum submitted that since he was appearing for Respondent No-2 along with Sri. Ramanujacharya standing counsel for Respondent No-2 and owing to his appointment as Member of this Forum it is not proper on his part to dispose of this case hence he requested to dispose of this case only by we President and Lady Member of this Forum, as has been directed by the Hon’ble State Commission Bangalore on this ground in DCFR.No. 87/06 on the file of this Forum. The said DCFR No. 87/06 has been disposed off by the President and Lady Member of the Forum as per the Order & direction of the Hon’ble State Commission in Misc.Petition No. 213/07 dt. 22-10-07 on the ground that Sri. Gruraj Kulkarni was representing Respondents in that case as one of the Advocates. So applying the principles and direction of the Hon’ble State Commission in DCFR.No. 87/06, the present case No. 119/06 has been disposed off by the President and Lady Member of the Forum only. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 9. Respondent NO-2 Society in their written-version have contended that the complainant is not a consumer and this complaint is not maintainable as per section 11 of C.P. Act since the Registered Office of Respondent No-2 is situated at Secunderabad. Further as per section 84 of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act-2002 this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant is shareholder of Respondent No-2 society as such any dispute that may arise has to be referred to the arbitration of the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In the affidavit-evidence by way of examination- in-chief, the written version averments have been reiterated. But the Respondent No- 1 & 3 have not contended the maintainability of the complaint even by virtue of territorial jurisdiction- U/s. 11 of C.P. Act. 10. The cause title of the complaint shows the Respondent NO-1 as the Senior Divisional Personal South Central Railway Guntakal (AP). Respondent NO-3 is Diesel Loco Inspector, South Central Railway Loco Shed Raichur and Respondent NO-2 is shown as Secretary, South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Himmathnagar, Secunderabad. The notice of the complaint issued by this Forum under RPAD to the Respondents 1 to 3 have been duly served on their respective address. The complainant in Para-1 of the complaint has stated that the Respondent No-1 is Pay Drawing Officer as well as Appointing Authority. Respondent NO-3 is his immediate Officer under whom he has worked. Respondent NO-2 is Secretary South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., Himmatnagar Secunderabad. The Respondent No- 1 & 3 in Para-2 of their written version have contended that as per consent of the working-employees, the recovery is effected towards monthly share amount and loan recovery, if any loan is availed by such shareholder/employee. In Para-3 they have contended that the complainant was paid all his due retirement benefits after duly recovering the amounts due to Railway Administration and to the Credit Society. The amounts which are due to credit society by the complainant has to be recovered and to be sent to the credit society (Respondent NO-2). According to the advise/direction and secretary of that society the amount was to be recovered and sent to the society. In Para-4 of their written version they have contended that recovery of amount towards co-operative society loan, the Respondent will have to act as per direction of Respondent No-2 society. Respondent NO-1 will not effect any recovery from the salary of the employees on its own. From these averments it shows that Respondent No-2 society dues having been deducted by the Respondent No-1 from the salary of its employees including the present complainant who are the shareholder of Respondent No-2 society. More specifically in Para-3 they have contended that the retirement benefits were paid to the complainant after duly recovering the amounts due to Railway Administration as well as to the Respondent No-2 credit society. If these averments of Respondent No- 1 & 3 in their written version are taken into consideration in the light of the fact that the Respondent NO-3 is an immediate officer under whom the complainant has worked and whose office is situated at Raichur. So by virtue of clause (b) & (c) of sub-section 2 of section 11 of C.P. Act the complaint is maintainable in this Forum since the Respondent NO-3 office is situated at Raichur and cause of action has taken place at Raichur. 11. Secondly it is contended by Respondent NO-2 that this complaint is not maintainable by virtue of 84 of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act-2002 since any dispute other than dispute regarding disciplinary action, touching the constitution management business of the Multi State Co-operative Society arises between the society and its members, such dispute shall be referred Arbitration. It is to be noted that as per section-3 of C.P. Act, the provision of C.P. Act is not in derogation of any other law. So the remedies under the C.P. Act being in-addition to and not in derogation of any other law for time being in-force. Therefore even if any other Act provides for any remedy to litigant but that does not bar the jurisdiction of the Fora. This our view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1986-2002 CONSUMER- 6504 (NC) & (2) 1986-2002 CONSUMER- Page 6736. In the above two referred case there was a question regarding ousting of the jurisdiction of the Fora by virtue of provision of co-operative society Act. The Hon’ble National Commission has held that the jurisdiction of the Fora was not barred even though there is a dispute covered under any State Co-operative Societies act. So as discussed above the complaint is not barred by virtue of territorial jurisdiction or by virtue of section 84 of Co-operative Societies Act as contended by the Respondent NO-2. Therefore Point NO-1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 12. The main grievance of the complainant as could be seen from his complaint is that if there was any dues from R.Rajamani who retired earlier to the complainant it ought to have been recovered from retirement benefits of said R.Rajamani as per rules and as such recoveries made out of his retirement benefit on the ground that he was surety to R.Rajamani is unjustified and so the non-settlement of his claim by the Respondents amounts to deficiency in service. 13. There is no dispute that during his service, complainant H.Tippaiah had became member of the Respondent No-2 society and had also offered surety to his colleague employee R.Rajamani who was member of Respondent NO-2 society. This R.Rajamani voluntarily retired on 30-11-04 earlier to the voluntary retirement of this complainant on 31-01-05. According to Respondent No-2 Credit society, while settling the retirement benefit of the complainant his liability were Rs. 44,498/- and assets were only Rs. 17,300/- excluding DCRG amount of Rs. 41,340/-. Since the complainant was due to the Respondent No-2 society, hence after adjusting his assets to the said liabilities, this Respondent No-2 has paid an amount of Rs. 14,142/- for which he was liable after taking into consideration his DCRG amount. It is also contended by Respondent NO-2 that the Respondent No-2 has no information from the Railways (Respondent No-1 & 3) that R.Rajamani Assistant Cook VRR/Raichur had taken voluntary retirement with effect from 30-11-04. On the basis of legal notice of the complainant dt. 25-04-06 it had come to the notice of this Respondent that H.Tippaiah (complainant) and R.Rajamani have taken VRS with effect from 31-01-05 and 30-11-04 respectively. R.Rajamani case was closed on 09-05-06 duly informing the CCI/SCR with a copy to R.Rajamani it was also informed to Sri. Narasimhalu, Sri. Khaja Hussain and H.Tippaiah (complainant) vide their letter dt. 09-05-06 that 50% of the surety liability of R.Rajamani has been adjusted from their assets. Hence the allegation in Para-5 of the complaint are all false and accordingly a suitable reply to the legal notice has been given to the complainant. 14. The complainant has produced (15) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15. Out of which Ex.P-5 is the letter/application dt. 20-01-06 to the Senior DPO Guntakal (Respondent No-1) requesting for the release of his with-held amount of Rs. 41,340/- towards CCS/SC dues. Ex.P-6 is the letter of Respondent No-2 dt. 24-05-05 addressed to the complainant-H.Tippaiah showing the outstanding dues/loan amount of Ravi Prakash and R.Rajamani for whom he is surety. Ex.P-7 is the Office Memorandum of Respondent NO- 1 & 3 showing among others, the acceptance of request for voluntary retirement of R.Rajamani with effect from 30-11-04. This Ex.P-7 (Office Memorandum dt. 16-11-04) shows forwardal of copies to some others concerned, but it does not show forwardal of copy to Respondent No-2, as rightly contended by Respondent No-2 in the written version. Ex.P-11 is letter of Respondent No.2 dt. 09-05-06 addressed to the complainant stating that the surety dues amount of Rs. 22,257/- (pertaining to R.Rajamani) having been equally adjusted in the assets/ amount of the complainant and Narasimhalu being the sureties of said R.Rajamani. 15. Ex.P-14 is the settlement of pension benefit of the complainant showing his Assets & Liabilities and net payable to him. It is to be noted that during course of enquiry of this case, the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents for producing the retirement showing the Assets & Liabilities of said R.Rajamani. In-pursuance of direction of this Forum, the Respondent No.1 produced a statement showing details of payments made to R.Rajamani at the time of voluntary retirement which has been marked as Ex.P-15. But this statement shows only the detail payments made to R.Rajamani without showing details of with-held/recovered amount towards liability of R.Rajamani, as has been shown in the statement of the complainant at Ex.P-14. So the complainant again sought for direction for producing the details of payment made to R.Rajamani showing Assets & Liabilities in detail. On 26-02-08 the counsel for Respondents 1 & 3 filed a memo with a statement relating to loan and recoveries made from R.Rajamani by Respondents 1 & 3 by submitting that the Respondents have already filed the accounts showing Assets & Liabilities of R.Rajamani which has been already marked as Ex.P-15 and now today they have filed a settlement relating to loan and recovery made from R.Rajamani, which in-turn speaks the liability of R.Rajamani and the same may be accepted. Hence the same has been marked as Ex.R-7 for the Respondent NO- 1 & 3. This Ex.R-7 shows Nil balance of old loan but however it shows new loan of Rs. 10,000/- taken by R.Rajamani on 10-09-01 and after leaving the loan balance of Rs. 423/- another loan of Rs. 25,000/- was availed by R.Rajamani on 05-07-04. It further shows that after some recoveries the outstanding dues shows at Rs. 22,072/- and interest of Rs. 185/- as on March 2005. Admittedly this R.Rajamani had taken voluntary retirement with effect from 30-11-04 as per office Memorandum issued by Respondents 1 & 3 at Ex.P-7. As rightly contended by the Respondent No-2 in their written version, the copy of this office memorandum regarding permission accorded to R.Rajamani to take voluntary retirement from 30-11-04 has not been informed/intimated by furnishing a copy of this memorandum. Admittedly Respondents No- 1 & 3 used to deduct the loan dues of Respondent No-2 society from the salary of its employees including this R.Rajamani. So a responsibility, rather a grave responsibility lies on the Respondent NO- 1 & 3 to intimate the acceptance of voluntary retirement of R.Rajamani to the Respondent NO-2 society in-order to recover the entire outstanding loan dues from voluntarily/retirement benefits of this R.Rajamani. If this Office Memorandum regarding Permission of voluntary retirement to R.Rajamani had been intimated to Respondent NO-2 society by marking a copy of the same, then all these complications would not have been arisen as rightly contended the Respondent No-2. Even Respondent No-2 had not dreampt of voluntary retirement taken by this R.Rajamani and consequently the non-recovery of dues of R.Rajamani were shifted on the sureties including the complainant as reveled from the letter at Ex.P-11. 16. Of course surety is liable & responsible for the clearness of dues of principal borrower, but when the principal borrower has received sufficient funds from his pension-benefits at Rs. 2,83,906/- as could be seen from Ex.P-15(1), then what prevented the Respondent NO-1 & 3 being the Pay Drawing Officer of this R.Rajamani for not recovering the loan dues in the pensionery benefits of R.Rajamani or intimating V.R.S of Rajamani to Respondent NO-2. It would be more so when the loan installment dues having been recovered from the salary of this R.Rajamani from August 2004 to November-2004 as revealed from the loan recovery statement of R.Rajamani furnished by Respondents No. 1 & 3 at Ex.R-7. It would be further so when it is in the very month of November-2004 itself, this R.Rajamani voluntarily retired as per office Memorandum issued by Respondent No- 1 & 3 dt. 16-11-04 accepting the request for voluntarily retirement with effect from 30-11-04. Hence all these infirmities and lacunas on the part of Respondent No- 1 & 3 made to deduct the un-recovered loan amount of R.Rajamani from the pensionery-benefit of this complainant and not settling his claim in-spite of his repeated requests are all the factors showing deficiency of service on the part of Respondent NO-1 to 3. Therefore we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency of service by the Respondents 1 to 3 in not settling his pension benefits by way of indemnifying the less paid amount which was recovered towards loan dues of R.Rajamani and Point NO-2 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.3:- 17. The complainant has sought for Rs. 26,198/- with admissible interest from 31-01-05 to 20-05-06 and sought for Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000- towards damages and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation totaling to Rs. 71,198/-. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly & severally directed to refund the amount which was deducted/recovered being the loan dues of R.Rajamani, in the pensionery benefit of the complainant, by calculation and to pay interest at 9% on the said amount from 31-01-05 till realization. The Respondents shall pay a global compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages and cost of litigation. The Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish a copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-03-08) Sd/- As per Para-8 of judgement Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.