SHANKAR KUMAR MITRA Vs. EASTERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.