Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

J.Shiva Kumar vs Ccw Air And Tv National Film Development ... on 24 August, 2022

                                     1
                                                     APPEAL No.379/2021

                                            Date of Filing : 09.04.2021
                                          Date of Disposal : 24.08.2022

      BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
     REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
                         DATED: 24.08.2022
                              PRESENT

         Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.379/2021 Sri. J. Shivakumar Aged 58 years S/o Late M.K.Janakiram R/at C-3, SPT AIR Staff Quarters Yelahanka New Town Bengaluru-560 064 (By Mr. G.R. Rajesh Kumar) Appellant

-Versus-

1. The President CCW AIR and TV National Film Development Corporation Employees Co-operative Thrift Credit Society Ltd., F-3, Anugraha Apartments, No.56 Singanna Chetty Street Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002 (By Mr. M.C Ravi Kumar, Advocate)

2. Executive Engineer (Electrical) CCW, All India Radio Raj Bhavan Road Bengaluru - 560 001 Respondents

-:ORDER:-

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 24.02.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.487/2019 on the file 1 2 APPEAL No.379/2021 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short, the District Commission).

2. The Commission examined the grounds of Appeal, impugned order and heard Appellant/Complainant in person and learned counsel for Respondents.

3. Mr. J.Shivakumar, the Complainant raised Consumer Complaint on 11.03.2019 before Commission below under Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 for the following reliefs.

1. Direct OP1 to issue cut-off statement of the Complainant's loan account, deducting the thrift amount separately.

2. Direct the OP1 to repay the excess amount recovered for loan, if remitted from the complainant salary, as well as the thrift amount.

3. Direct OP1 to pay the compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards damages.

4. Award a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards mental torture and agony, caused by the OP No.1 to the Complainant.

4. This Complaint is contested by OPs, Commission below held an enquiry, recorded a finding on the point of maintainability that Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, in view of Section 3 of the CP Act, 1986, but facts remain Commission below found complaint raised by the Complainant/Appellant, is raised only after receipt of notice of Arbitration Proceeding, as such held Complainant has utterly failed to prove either rendering deficiency in service on the part of Ops, thereby dismissed the complaint with costs.

5. Complainant in his complaint has stated, being Member of OP1 Society and an employee of OP2 availed loan of Rs.16,000/- on 09.11.2005, Rs.50,000/- on 09.11.2007 and Rs.76,400/- on 06.04.2011 and in this regard, OP2 used to deduct monthly instalment amount from his salary and used to remit the same to OP1 Society. He alleged that he has paid Rs.4,16,000/- before December 2005 to April 2011 at Rs.6,500/- per month, Rs.33,000/-

between November 2013 to September 2014 at Rs.3,000/- per month, Rs.2,25,000/- between October 2014 to June 2018 and Rs.35,000/- between July 2018 to January 2019 i.e., Rs.7,09,000/- till January 2019. However, he could not repay the loan between 2011 to 2013 as he was placed under suspension. He alleged against OP1 Society that in spite of his repeated letters fails to furnish copy of statement which in fact in his complaint prayer No.1 sought direction against OP1 to issue cut off statement of his loan account deducting Rs.5,000/- account separately could have been considered by Commission below, for simple reason that he availed the service of the OP1 and he has to be construed as consumer within the meaning of S.2(d) of CPA. In our view even if Complainant/Appellant herein raised consumer complaint under Section 12 of CP Act 1986 after receipt of Arbitration Proceedings, non-consideration of prayer no.1 has to be said an error committed by the commission below, however in so for non consideration of the rest of the prayers sought by the Complainant the District Commission has to be held right and does not call for any interference. In our further view complaint has to be held entitled to obtain statement of his loan account, even to participate in the Arbitration Proceedings said to be initiated by OP, in order to assist learned Arbitrator to take a right decision. In such conclusion, Commission proceed to allow the Appeal in part and modified the impugned order in the following terms.

Complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part and directed OP1 to issue cut off statement of the Complainant loan account deducting thrift amount separately within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order and on failure to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation and he is entitled to make a request before the learned Arbitrator to draw an inference on such loan account statement in his favour. Accordingly, Appeal stands disposed of.

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned, immediately.

              Lady M0ember              Judicial Member

*s




                                  4