<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 21st MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2816/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS 1. Sri.A.V.Shamrao,S/o Venkata Rao,Aged 66 years,R/a No.39, Kousalya Nilaya,Ramaiah Reddy Layout,Rama Murthy Nagar,Bangalore – 560016.2. Sri.N.Murugendrappa,S/o N.Mahanthappa,Aged 68 years,R/at No.64, K.V.Extension,1st Main Road,New Police Station Road,K.R.Puram,Bangalore – 560036.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. V.M.Srinivasan,General Secretary,I.T.I Ex./V.R Employees / Officers Welfare Association,Regd.No.947/95-96,No.27, Munikalappa Layout,Ramamurthy Nagar,Bangalore – 560016.2. Sampangi Achar,Vice President,I.T.I Ex./V.R. Employees / Officers Welfare Association,Owner, Apna Bazaar Shop Buildings,C/o Apna Bazaar,(Agaram village) Horamavu,Ramamurthy Nagara Main Road,Bangalore – 560016.Advocate – Sri.Harikrishna S.Holla<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.30,000/- each towards the court expenses and for compensation and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainants being the senior citizens are the members of I.T.I Ex/VR Employees/Officer’s Welfare Association. Present OP’s are the office bearers of the said association. The said association accepted the membership of the complainants and collected admission fees, legal fees, membership fees etc., in all to the tune of Rs.3,38,000/- right from 1996 to 2001. Then the secretary of the said association filed a petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, it came to be allowed directing the I.T.I management to pay the revised ex-gratia amount within six months. Each one of the employees expected nearly about Rs.50,000/- towards ex-gratia. Though association collected the other expenses and took the signatures of the complainants but failed to follow up the said orders immediately. In the mean time I.T.I management filed Writ Appeal in 1998. The said Writ Appeal also came to be disposed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka confirming the earlier orders. Thereafter also office bearers did not take immediate steps about the recovery of the said amount. In the mean time again the I.T.I management preferred a Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is pending for disposal. To defend the said Special Leave Petition OP collected Rs.2,000/- from each one of the members but failed to appoint an advocate. Thus complainants felt that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s. Because of their hostile attitude they are unable to reap the fruits of the decree which they have obtained for more than six years or so. Their repeated requests and demands went in futile. For no fault of theirs they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence they are advised to file this complaint seeking court expenses from the OP’s to defend themselves. <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Complainant’s being Executive Members of the said association, they are party to the resolution passed by the Association. In terms of the General Body Meeting resolutions OP collected the legal expenses and other chargers. There is nothing wrong. Association tried its level best to defend its case and to protect the interest of the members. When the matters are pending before the court complainant can’t insist the OP to dance to their tunes. OP has maintained the accounts with regard to the expenses collected from each one of the members and amount spent. On the earlier occasion complainant filed the similar kind of complaints and their payment of Rs.2,000/- was refunded to them though they paid less. When the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, OP’s hands are tied to implement the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. OP’s are not liable to pay the said court expenses in their individual capacity. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that these complainants are the Executive Members of the OP association. Hence for this simple reason whatever the decision that is taken by the OP association in its General Body Meeting or special meeting with regard to filing of the complaint, defending of the case, execution of the decree and the sharing of the legal expenses is binding on them. So the allegations of the complainant that though OP collected the necessary legal charges failed to defend the case rather does not hold force. On the perusal of the complaint itself the secretary of the association filed petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka against the I.T.I management and the association is successful in getting the favourable orders wherein management was directed to pay the revised ex-gratia amount within six months that is by September 1998. Each one of the members were expecting about Rs.50,000/-. Complainants instead of thanking the secretary of the association files this complaint.<br /> <br /> 7. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though OP’s being the office bearers of the association, collected necessary legal expenses they did not follow up the said decree and get benefits to the complainant. In the mean time Writ Appeal is filed in November 1998 by the I.T.I management that is within a span of three months. That Writ Appeal also came to be disposed of in September 2001 confirming the earlier order. These facts are not at dispute. Thereafter it appears the said I.T.I management filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it is pending for disposal. In order to defend the said case OP association collected about Rs.2,000/- from each member. That act of the OP is based on the resolution passed by the General Body, Executive Committee of the association. When that is so, we don’t find force in the allegations of the complainant that the amount collected by the OP towards the legal expenses is not properly utilized or the services of the Advocates at Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was not availed in time.<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. It is much contended by the complainants that OP failed to furnish them the address of the Advocates of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India who are engaged on behalf of their association and there is no proper representation. Again we don’t find force in the allegations of the complainants. The documents produced by the OP clearly speaks to the proceedings of the Executive Committee Meeting and the intimation sent to the members of the Association. Advocate of Hon’ble Supreme Court who are defending the OP association, have written letters and that letter clearly indicates the address, the status and the stage of the said Special Leave Petition. Complainants being the Executive Members of the said association must have been aware of the same. So under such circumstances the allegations of the complainant that they are kept in dark, no proper, immediate and appropriate steps were taken by the OP to defend the said Special Leave Petition appears to be baseless. When the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, OP can’t take any further action till it is disposed of.<br /> <br /> <br /> 9. It is further stated by the OP that earlier complainants have filed same type of complaint wherein OP is forced to refund sum of Rs.2,000/- each. That fact is not pleaded by the complainants nor it is denied. So the approach of the complainants does not appears to be fair and honest, they want to suppress certain material facts which are well within their knowledge may be with ulterior motive. The very prayer sought by the complainants is strange. They want OP to pay Rs.30,000/- towards the further court expenses to defend them in our view it will not come under the purview of C.P Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. As already observed by us complainants are the part and parcel of the association and the resolutions passed. Being the Executive Committee members they are bound by the court orders. The pleadings discloses that as and when time aroused OP did context the matter by engaging the council and defended the association and protected the interest of the members of the association. When that is so, the other allegation of the complainants appears to be unfounded. They can’t seek the further court expenses from the OP in their individual capacity. Complaint is devoid of merits. Complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />