State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
City And Industrial Development ... vs U.N.Kshirsagar, Retired ... on 6 May, 2011
1 F.A.No.:1545/2001
Date of filing :09.02.2002
Date of order :06.05.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :1545 OF 2001
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:425 OF 1994
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :AURANGABAD.
Administrator,
City and Industrial Development Corporation
Of Maharashtra,
Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Opp.No.2)
VERSUS
1. U.N.Kshirsagar, Retired Asstt.Inspector(Dead),
His legal representatives,
1A. Bhaskar Uttamrao Kshirsagar,
2B. Satish Uttamrao Kshirsagar,
R/o N-7, Complainant-13, Cidco
Police Colony, Aurangabad.
2. Magan Kamalaji Aucharmal,
Asstt.P.I.,
Police Head quarter(Rural),
Aurangabad.
3. N.S.Sabare, Asstt.P.I.,
Police Station, Gangapur,
Dist.Aurangabad.
4. A.B.Sonawane, Asstt.P.I.,
Head Quarter(Urban),
Aurangabad.
5. Mirza Saifullah Baig,
Police Head Constable,
Motor Transport Branch,
Police Head Quarter(Urban),
Aurangabad.
6. Keshav Tuakaram Bhalerao,
Police Head Constable,
Police Station, CIDCO,
Aurangabad.
2 F.A.No.:1545/2001
7. Ramesh Baburao Parashar,
Police Head Constable,
Police Station, Jinsi,
Aurangabad.
8. Dhondiram Laxmanrao Nikkam,
Police Head Quarter(Urban),
Aurangabad.
9. Vijay Dagaduji Kadam,
Motor Transport Branch,
Police Head Quarter(Rural),
Aurangabad.
10 Laxman Pundlik Ahire,
Motor Transport Branch,
Police Head Quarter(Rural),
Aurangabad.
11. Bansi Yeshwantrao Sasane,
Police Head Constable,
M.I.D.C. Police Station,
Paithan.
12. Vitthal Sakharam Patil,
Retired Police Head Constable,
N-7, Complainant-15, CIDCO Police
Head Constable, Aurangabad.
13. Ukhardu Shahaji Dandge,
Retired Police Head Constable,
N-7, Complainant-3, CIDCO Police Colony,
Aurangabad.
14. Eknath Namdeo Shinde,
Motor Transport Branch,
Police Head Quarter(Rural),
Aurangabad.
15. The Superintendent of Police,
Rural, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS
(No.1to14-Org.Complainants,
No.15-Org.Opp.No.1)
CORAM : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
3 F.A.No.:1545/2001Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.S.Tope for appellant , None for respondents.
O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
1. The present appeal is filed by Administrator, CIDCO, Aurangabad/org.opponent No.2 against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad in complaint case No. 425/1994.
2. The present respondent No.1, the deceased retired PSI whose legal heirs are 1) Bhaskar Uttamrao Kshirsagar 2) Satish Uttamrao Kshirsagar was the original complainant before the Forum. He had filed the complaint before the Forum for himself and on behalf of 13 others against the present appellant/original respondent No.2 and present respondent No.15/original respondent No.1. The case of the complainant before the Forum is that, about 92 police employees had purchased tenements from CIDCO in 1978 on instalment basis. The cost of each tenement was Rs.12885/- and same was to be paid in 15 years on monthly instalment of Rs.92.30 ps. through the respondent No.1 i.e. Superintendent of Police(Gramin), Aurangabad. That, accordingly the respondent No.15 had entered into an agreement with the appellant. That, as per the said agreement the amount of instalments were to be deducted from their monthly salary and same were to be deposited with the appellant. Accordingly, instalments were deducted from their salary for the period from June 1978 to March 1991 and the same were deposited with the appellant. That initially the payment of Rs.4693/- in respect of each policemen were paid to the appellant CIDCO by the Dy.Inspector General of Police from the loan sanctioned on behalf of these police employees. It is contended that possession of tenement was delayed for 2 years by the appellant, for which they had to bear the interest of Rs.4693/-.
4 F.A.No.:1545/2001According to complainants the entire price of said tenement has been paid to the appellant Corporation and there is no amount due to them. It is contended that from June 1978 to March 1991 they have individually paid an amount of Rs.18,814.90 as against amount of Rs.16,614/- which was to be deposited in instalment during the period of 15 years. i.e. an excess amount of Rs.2200/- is paid. However, demand notices showing therein outstanding dues are being issued by the appellant. That the present complainant/respondent No.1 is retired on 31st March 1989 was asked to pay balance and Rs.4551.80 till 30.9.91 out of which he paid Rs.1600/- and requested appellant`s office to provide him details regarding balance amount. However no such details were given to him and again in June 1993 he was given notice of Rs.6486.75 ps. as outstanding amount. Thus the complainants i.e. present respondent No.1 to 14 have alleged that the appellant has committed deficiency in service by not providing details regarding the amount due as shown against them and approached the Forum seeking direction to the appellant to provide with them all details regarding the instalment paid and to refund excess amount collected from them.
3. Present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint on the ground that there is no deficiency in service made out against the appellant. Secondly, complaint is signed only by one complainant i.e. deceased Kshirsagar and other 13 have not signed nor they have authorised present complainant to represent on behalf of them. Hence the complaint is not tenable and the Forum below ought not to have entertained the same. It is further submitted that original respondent No.1 was responsible as per agreement to deduct instalment from the salary of the concerned employees who have purchased tenements and the amount deducted was to be deposited with the CIDCO. However the said amount of instalment was not being deposited in time. Secondly, instead of depositing the amount policemenwise a lump-sum amount was being deposited at a time 5 F.A.No.:1545/2001 therefore it was not possible to show details of the amount deposited in respect of each policeman. That at times the amount of 2-3 monthly instalments were being paid together. Therefore separate account in respect of each policeman was practically difficult. Therefore CIDCO authority had to get the details from the office of the present respondent No.15 i.e. Superintendent of Police. It is further alleged that at times the cheques deposited by the respondent No.15 were dishonoured and the payment of instalments was delayed. Therefore delay charges and interest was levied as per rules and agreement, therefore there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The Forum below after perusal of the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed present appellant to waive the recovery of the delay payment charges and interest from the complainants.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Aurangabad, the CIDCO has filed the present appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the respondents as well as appellant. Adv.Shri.S.S.Tope appeared for appellant, none appeared on behalf of respondents though notice was published in news paper. On the date of final hearing on 29.4.2011 Adv.Shri.S.S.Tope was heard for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that although monthly instalments of the concern policemen being deducted from their salary the amount so deducted was not being deposited with the CIDCO office regularly. That the amount of instalment was also not being deposited policemenwise. It was also alleged that sometimes the cheque of instalments have been dishonoured and for getting substitute cheques delay was occurred. Therefore as per terms and conditions of the agreement the delay charges and interest on the delayed payment have been charged. There is no deficiency on the 6 F.A.No.:1545/2001 part of appellant. It was also argued that present complaint is signed only by one complainant and therefore the same can be considered only to the extent of said complaint and not in respect of other 13 whose names are given but they have not signed the complaint. He further submitted that learned Forum exceeded its jurisdiction in directing appellant to waive the charges of interest and delayed payment and requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Forum.
7. We have gone through the papers and also argument as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. It is observed that original complaint is signed only by deceased Shri.U.N.Kshirsagar and not by other 13 policemen as is contended by the learned counsel for appellant. However lateron, out of these 13 policemen 3 policemen named as 1)Ramesh Baburao Parashar 2) Bansi Yashwantrao Sasane & 3) Ukhardu Shahaji Dandge i.e. the present respondent at Sr.No. 7,11, & 13 have filed the separate applications under their signature to give them relief. Therefore although as per Section 13(6) of Consumer Protection Act and as per provision of Rule 8 of Order 1 the complaint cannot be treated as filed by all 14 complainants, the same can be taken to have filed by the four policemen as mentioned above.
8. As regards the delay charges and interest which appellant has claimed from the complainants there appears no specific provision brought on record by the appellant on the basis of which such charges are claimed. The learned counsel has referred to the provision U/s 9 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966, under which Regional Board is empowered to make regulations for regulating its procedure and to conduct its business. He submitted contended that on the basis of this provision appellant Corporation have made certain regulations regarding levy of interest and delay charges on the delay payment. However no such pleading are made by the appellant before the Forum or in the appeal. Although it is 7 F.A.No.:1545/2001 mentioned that such charges are levied as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, but no such agreement is brought on record. Thus it reveals that appellant Corporaiton has failed to show provision under which they have charged such delay charges and interest on the outstanding amount. No evidence also produced by the appellant to show the policemenwise amount of delayed instalments in absence of which the delay charges and interest charged on ad-voc basis can not be treated as correct. It is also to be noted that the contention of the respondents/complainants that they have paid excess amount of Rs.2200/- per tenement is also not denied by the appellant. Hence the action of charging the delay charges and interest by the appellant is not justified.
9. It is further revealed that no proper account in respect of repayment of instalment in respect of each policeman has been maintained by the office of appellant. In fact learned counsel himself argued that present respondent No.15 has some times used to deposit the amount of instalment in lump-sum instead of giving policemenwise details of payment. It itself reveals that correct account regarding repayment were not kept with the office of appellant. Therefore while issuing notice regarding outstanding amount no such details regarding how much delay for how many instalment is caused in respect of each policemen has not been provided. It is the case of the complainants that they have time and again visited the office of appellant and requested for giving detail of outstanding amount but no such details were provided to them. In absence of such details and proper account of these policemen the amount towards delay charges and interest as shown in the notice given to the complainant is not acceptable. Therefore failure to supply proper and correct account regarding the said delay charges/interest amount as demanded through notice, itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of appellant Corporation.
8 F.A.No.:1545/200110. It appears that the Forum below has rightly considered all these aspects except that the complaint though signed only by one complainant and subsequently 3 out of 13 policemen have filed separate applications for claiming the same relief, the order is passed in respect of all the 14 org.complainants i.e. present respondents No.1 to 14. In fact in view of the abovesaid explanation the Forum should have restricted it`s order only to the extent of these 4 complainants. But Forum below has failed to appreciate the legal provision U/s 13(6) of the Consumer Protection Act. We are therefore inclined to modify the said judgment and order to that extent. Accordingly we pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order in respect of present respondent No.1, 7, 11 & 13 is confirmed. The order in respect of the rest of the respondents/Org.complainants is quashed and set aside and complaint stands dismissed in respect of those.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh Member Member Presiding Judicial Member. Mane