State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.P.S.R.T.C .Employees Thrift & Credit ... vs V.Rama Rao ,Vijayawada Rural, Krishna ... on 11 April, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD FA.869/2009 against C.C.No.205/2008, District Forum-II, Vijayawada , Krishna District . Between: A.P.S.R.T.C .Employees Thrift & Credit Co-operative Society , Satyanarayana Reddy Marg:Azamabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary,. Appellant/ Opp.party And V.Rama Rao , S/o.Basavapurna Chandra Rao, Aged about 59 years, R/o.Plot no.B, F-11, Sai Model Village, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.A.K.Jayaprakasa Rao Counsel for the Respondent : CORAM:THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member.) *** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.205/2008 on the file of District Forum-II, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is an employee of A.P.S.R.T.C. and retired as Asst. Depot Clerk and during his services he joined as a Member of opposite party Society. At the time of retirement on 31.5.2008 the complainant submitted all the required documents to the opp.party as per rules for processing and settlement of claim. After retirement the complainant received a letter from the opp.party office dt.25.6.2008 vide ref. no.CCS 11/108791 RTD wherein it was stated that his claim was settled for Rs.1,66,682/- , but he was surprised to receive a cheque for Rs.1,32,085/- only for which no details were furnished. The complainant immediately brought the fact of short fall of Rs.34,597/- as against the settled claim amount of Rs.1,66,682/- to the notice of opp.party and questioned about non payment of the said difference of amount and the opp.party officials assured that the said difference amount will be paid within a short period.
Inspite of repeated phone calls and personal visits, the opposite party did not choose to pay the balance. The complainant got issued a notice dt.17.9.2008 to the opposite party demanding to pay the claim amount immediately which was received by the opp.party but there is no response. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for failure to pay the difference amount and illegally withholding it, the complainant approached District Forum seeking direction to the opp.party to pay the difference amount of Rs.34,597/- with interest @ 24% from 25.6.2008 till realization , to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and to award costs of Rs.2000/-.
The opposite party filed counter admitting the membership of the complainant and settlement of amount of Rs.1,66,682/- . The opp.party submits that they have deducted an amount of Rs.34,562/-
from settlement of amount and paid the balance amount of Rs.1,32,085/- as the complainant stood as surety to the loan of V.V.Raghavendra Rao who is a defaulter of the loan amount.
The complainant has himself accepted in the loan application form that Surety holders are jointly accepted, in case of default of the loan amount by the loan borrower the due amount of loan and interest deducted from the salary of the surety holders or settlements from the A.P.S.R.T.C or Cooperative Society or loans from the surety holders. The opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seeks dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4 allowed the complaint directing the opp.party to pay an amount of Rs.34,562/- to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from 25.6.2008 till the date of payment and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs.
Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant became a member of the appellant Society and subscribed for MRDF and retired as Asst. Depot clerk on 31.5.2008. It is the complainants case that at the time of his retirement, the MRDF benefits of the complainant were settled for Rs.1,66,682/- but the complainant received a cheque for only Rs.1,32,085/- evidenced under Ex.A1. Ex.A1 reads as follows:
Total assets = 1,66,682/-
Less Liabilities :
a) Personal loan due - Rs. - Nil
b) Educational loan due Rs. -Nil
c) Loans guaranteed due Rs.
-Nil
d) Total liabilities -Rs. -Nil Amount payable -Rs.1,32,085/-.
It is apparent on the face of the record that no details were furnished to the complainant about shortfall of Rs.34,597/-. It is evidenced under Ex.A2 that the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.17.9.2008 for which there was no reply. It is a case of the appellant/opp.party that an amount of Rs.34,597/- was deducted as the complainant stood as guarantor to one Mr.V.V.Raghavender Rao for an educational loan taken in the year 2004. The learned counsel for the appellant/opp.party filed before this Commission the Loan and MRDF Balances for year 2005-2006 pertaining to the complainant which do not clearly specify as to what amounts were deducted towards which purpose specifically towards the loan amount of the principal borrower. The respondent/complainant deny the receipt of Exs.B3 and B4 and appellant/opp.party also has not filed the acknowledgements to prove their contention that notices were sent to the complainant in the year 2005 informing him that the principal borrower has not discharged his educational loan. It is pertinent to note that there is a notification dt.1.12.2007, six months prior to the date of retirement of the complainant directing all the officials including the appellant/opp.party to submit the due particulars of the complainant herein. Even at that juncture, the opp.party did not raise any objection or furnish particulars about his dues. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/opp.party that the complainant stood as guarantor to Mr.V.V.Raghavendra Rao who took an educational loan on 27.11. 2004 and therefore the amounts were deducted, since all efforts made to recover the loan had failed is not substantiated by any documentary evidence as their written version as well as the affidavit are silent about the steps taken to recover the said amount from the principal. The loan was sanctioned in Novermeber, 2004 and the opp.party is silent about the steps taken till 2008 for recovery of the loan, specially when the principal borrower is still working in A.P.S.R.T.C as stated before this Commission. Finally even in Ex.A1 there is absolutely no mention of the complainants liabilities and instead the appellant/opp.party deducted Rs.34,597/-, which the District Forum has rightly directed the opp.party to refund. We do not see any substantial grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 11.4.2011