District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Consumer Case No. 86 of 2008
Surendra Kumar s/o late Ganauri Prasad
R/o Qr. No.1-126, Sector-II/A
B.S.City, Dist.- Bokaro.
Versus
1. Secretary, Bokaro Steel Employees (Admn. Services) co-operative Credit Society Ltd., 85 Old Administrative Building, Bokaro Steel City-827001.
2. Executive Director,
SAIL, Raw Material Division, 10 Camac Street, industry House, Kolkata.
Before-
S.M.Alam, President
Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment-: 18 March, 2009
Date of case filing-: 17 November, 2008
-: Judgment:-
The complainant has filed the present case against the opposite parties and sought the following relief against them
(i) To Stop recovery of loan amount per month at higher rate in place of Rs. 2300/-
(ii) To refund Rs. 30300/- which has already deducted till Oct, 2008 from the salary of the complainant.
(iii) To pay Rs. 10000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment.
2 Brief case of the complainant is that he is an employee of SAIL/Raw Material Division, CSO, Bokaro having staff No. 452863 and one of the member of opposite party No.1 having membership number 2416.
3 The complainant applied for loan of Rs. 200000/- which was granted by the opposite party No.1 in the month of June, 2007. The said loan was to be recovered from the salary of the complainant in monthly installment of Rs. 2300/- and there was understanding that if the entire loan could not be recovered in such installment till the retirement of the complainant, the remaining amount would be recovered from the amount payable to him by his employer by way of final settlement. The opposite party No.1 continued deduction of Rs. 2300/- per month from his salary till Jan, 2008, however in the month of February, 2008 the installment of amount was enhanced from Rs. 2300/- to Rs. 3500/- without any notice to him and without assigning any reason for such enhancement. The complainant made representation to opposite party No.1 pointing out that there is no valid reason of enhancement of amount of installment and the recovery of loan at higher rates was causing financial hardship to him, as such he requested the opposite party No.1 to recover loan which was initially fixed at Rs. 2300/- per month and if the balance amount be recovered from the amount payable to him at the time of final settlement. The opposite party No.1 vide their letter dated 26.04.2008 informed him that the loan was recoverable in 89 installment during the remaining period of his service which ever was earlier. The opposite party No.1 further threatens and followed that by advising recovery @ Rs. 7400/- per month. There is no such provision in the Bye-laws of the society empowering to enhance or the rate of installment for repayment of loan in such an arbitrary fashion. The opposite party No.1 had also cited examples of some other persons of the society from whom recovery of loan was being made @ that the entire amount would not be recovery before their date of retirement notwithstanding the fact that some enhancement in the rate of installment in their case has also been made when the complainant cited their examples. As such the amount of loan remaining due against them would be recovered at the time of final settlement of their dues by the employer.
4 The further case of the complainant is that the aforesaid reason appears not to be valid reason for enhancement the rate of installment in the case of the complainant particularly when he has brought to the notice of the opposite party No. 1 the fact by reason of other loan taken by him to made the education needs of his son substantial amounts is deducted from his salary every month leaving little for him to live on. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the deduction made by the opposite party No.2, where the complainant is working as its regular employee is also in violation of the provision of section 7 (1) (3) of the payment of wages Act 1936, but the opposite party No.2 has also not care to prevail upon the opposite party No.1 not to advise such deductions from the monthly wages of the complainant towards the recovery of the loan amount.
5 The complainant sent a legal notice on 17.07.2008 to opposite parties but none of them have reply and continued to recover the loan amount at higher rate per month. The cause of action arose in the month of March, 2008 when the opposite party No.1 suddenly enhanced the monthly installment from Rs. 2300/- to Rs. 3500/- and thereafter without any notice and reason.
6 After issuance of notice the opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written statement stating there in that the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2(d0 of the CP Act and there is no relationship of service provider and consumer between the opposite party no.2 and the complainant. The complainant could not be considered as a consumer and therefore, this complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party no.2 either in law or facts and is liable to dismissed. The opposite party no.2 is employer of the employee being a executive director of SAIL Raw Material Division looks only the affairs related to raw material of the M/s SAIL and he has no concern with the co-operative credit society. It is to be mentioned here that the Bokaro Steel Employee Co-operative Society Ltd. has been constituted in accordance with Bihar and Orissa co-operative society Act 1935 and Bihar co-operative rules 1959. The decision of the society is taken by the committee which is elected by its member. The opposite party no.2 has no role to play in the internal affairs of the co-operative society because the co-operative society has independent legal status under the Act of rules. More so the complainant has also not level any allegation against the opposite party no.2 and not relief has been sought against the opposite party no.2. Thus the opposite party is neither necessary nor proper party of this complaint case; hence the case against the opposite party no.2 is fit to be dismissed.
7 The opposite party no.1 Bokaro Steel Employee co-operative society Ltd. is an independent body and the opposite party no.2 cannot direct and advise the opposite party no.1 to act in accordance with his advice. The opposite party no.2 further submits that if any deduction is made from the monthly wages of the complainant towards the recovery of the loan amount due to his contractual objection towards co-operative society. Thus the present complaint case of the complainant is not maintainable so far this opposite party no.2 is concerned and the case is fit to be dismissed.
8 In spite of issuance of notices, the opposite party no.1 appeared but did not filed its written statement in this case, as such the complaint case proceeded Ex-parte against the opposite party no.1.
9 WE have heard the complainant and opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.1 neither filed its written statement nor argued the case. Perused the case records and documents filed. It is observed that the complainant was granted a loan of Rs. 200000/-only by the opposite party no.1 in the month of June, 2007. The said loan was being recovered from the salary of the complainant initially @ of monthly installment of Rs. 2300/-enhanced to Rs. 3500/- then to Rs. 4500/- and lastly to Rs. 7500/-. From the copy of the letter dated 06.05.2008 written by the complainant to the opposite party no.1 it is found that balance of loan against him was Rs. 179600/- and his remaining service was 24 months as on the date of his letter mentioned above. In view of the above we have come to the conclusion that the entire balance loan Rs. 179600/- against the complainant has to be realized by the opposite party no.1 during the period of remaining service of the complainant which is 24 months as on 06.05.2008. As such there is no reason for this Forum to interfere in the matter of realization of the loan from the complainant by the opposite party no.1. We, therefore, do not hold that there is any negligency and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. The opposite parties are hence not held liable to pay any relief to the complainant.
10 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no merit is found in the case and the same is dismissed accordingly hereby.
Member (lady) Member President