SHANKAR KUMAR MITRA vs EASTERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO

-THIS is an Appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 22. 4. 2008 passed by the Howrah District Consumer Forum in its Complaint Case No. HDF 96 of 2006 dismissing the complaint. The facts of the case briefly are that the Appellant/complainant, who was an employee of Eastern Railway, took a loan of Rs. 50,000 on 27. 7. 2001 from the Respondent No. 1 bank subject to terms and conditions stipulated in their sanction letter for emergent medical treatment of his wife. The loan as per terms of the agreement was to be repaid in 48 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 1,342. Necessary authority was also given in favour of the employer through the said bank for deduction of the said monthly instalments from his salary every month. However, after deduction of some 8 to 10 instalments, the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the employer, stopped deducting the loan instalments from the salary of the Appellant. The Appellant after some time took voluntary retirement and at the time of disbursement of retiral benefit an amount of Rs. 48,312 was deducted from the said amount towards payment of loan and interest of Respondent No. 1 bank on the basis of agreement executed between the parties. The Appellant/complainant being aggrieved filed a dispute before the learned Forum, Howrah. After hearing all the sides the Forum below passed the above order.

THE Appellant contended that he took the loan of Rs. 50,000 from the Respondent No. 1 bank and the entire loan was to be repaid in 58 monthly instalments of Rs. 1,342. After his voluntary retirement he received the retiral benefits less Rs. 48,312 deducted on account of re-payment to the outstanding dues of the said loan. The said amount is inclusive of penal interest of Rs. 21,024. He contended that initially some instalments were deducted from his salary, but afterwards no deduction was made by the employer from his salary for which he is not responsible. Due to such negligence of the employer he has now faced with the problem of payment of the due amount along with penal interest as per terms of the agreement. He contended that this happened due to deficiency on the part of Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and also the Respondent No. 1. He has, therefore, come up with the prayer for issuing necessary direction upon the Respondent No. 1 bank not to charge any penal interest on the unpaid portion of the loan and also to direct the OP/respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to pay compensation due to their deficiency for not deducting the instalments from his salary. We have perused the Memo of Appeal, the written argument filed by the Respondent No. 3 and the impugned order passed by the learned Forum. We find that the learned Forum has dismissed the complaint evidently for want of jurisdiction and it has observed that the matter should be referred to arbitration, particularly when the Respondent No. 1/co-operative Society is registered under the Central Act.

From a perusal of the documents placed before us we find that as per agreement the Appellant/complainant was to repay the loan in 58 monthly instalments from his salary. As per undertaking given by the employer, i. e. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the onus laid on the Respondents to deduct the monthly instalments from the salary of the Appellant. However, after deducting some 8 to 10 instalments they stopped deducting any further instalment and as a result, the Appellant became a defaulter. At the time of releasing his retiral benefits an amount of Rs. 48,312 was deducted from his account towards payment of outstanding dues of the bank. The observation of the learned Forum that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum since it involved a cooperative society registered under the Central Act and also that there is a provision for arbitration. In terms of several decisions of the Hon''ble National Commission and Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Forum has complete jurisdiction to adjudicate any matter involving cooperative societies. The learned Forum misdirected itself in dismissing the complaint on the said ground.

HOWEVER, we find that the agreement entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent bank provides alternative arrangement for repayment of monthly dues by making personal payment to the counter of the bank or by issuing necessary instruction on the bank against his savings/current account. The Appellant was fully aware that after deducting some 8 to 10 instalments his employer had stopped deducting any further instalments and, therefore, it was incumbent on him to ensure that there was no interruption in the repayment schedule as per agreement with the bank. He should have taken necessary action to make such payment over the counter or through his account, if any. Hence, such a default was due to his own lapses and partly because the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 failed to discharge their obligations in spite of giving written consent to the Respondent No. 1 bank that they would deduct such instalments from the monthly salary of the Appellant. However, so far as negligence on the part of the employer is concerned, it does not come within the jurisdiction of the consumer Fora. The Appellant may seek redress before appropriate Forum. We are of the view that there was no deficiency on the part of Respondent No. 1 bank to adjust the amount of outstanding dues against the retiral benefit of the Appellant. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and be dismissed on contest without cost. The order of the Forum below dated 22. 4. 2008 is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.