Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

EA/5/2015

R. Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Special Officer, Mayuram Co-Operative Building Society and Two others. - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

13 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

       THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,       …..PRESIDENT.

     THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com.,   ….  MEMBER I

   Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMER II

                                                                             

EA.No.05/2015 in CC. No.78/2003

 

                                           DATED THE  13^th  DAY OF JULY 2015

 

 

R.Raju,

S/o M.P.Ramanathan

22, Oathamangala street,

Mayiladuthurai.                                            …  Petitioner/Complainant

    

                                                                       /versus/

 

1. The President,

    Mayuram Co-Operative Banking Society,

    Ganapathy Nagar, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub-Collector,

Cutchery Road, Mayiladuthurai.

3. The District Collector,

Nagapattinam.                             … Respondents/Opposite Parties

                                                                                                                                 

                                                                 

 

 Counsel for the Petitioner / complainant side                  : Nil.

 Counsel for the 1^st Respondents/ Opposite Party           : Thiru.S.Raman, Advocate

Counsel for the 2^nd & 3^rd Respondents/ Opposite parties : Government Pleader.

 

                                                               ORDER.

 

     By President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.,B.L., 

                        This Execution Application is filed by the complainant u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

                        The perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.1010, dt.22.09.1992 filed on behalf of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents makes it clear that when regular revenue staff is employed recovery shall be made in case acquisition proceedings are withdrawn after passing of the award at 13% towards establishment charges and 1.5% towards pensionary charges.  Therefore the balance amount of Rs.189653/- shown in the calculation memo of petitioner and the accrued interest thereon  is nothing but the said charges which they are entitled to recover.

                        Hence the petitioner is not entitled to claim the said amount.  The petition is therefore dismissed.

 

MEMBER I                                        MEMBER II                                                 PRESIDENT