IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A.No.329 of 2019 (Against the Order, dated 25.04.2019, passed in C.C.No.23 of

2015, by the DCDRC, Namakkal)

Monday, the 3^rd day of March, 2025

1. The Administrator, S.459, Pettapalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Kerayur-Pettapalayam Post, Mohanur Taluk, Namakkal District.

2. Secretary, S.459, Pettapalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Kerayur-Pettapalayam Post, Mohanur Taluk, Namakkal District. … Appellants/Opposite Parties vs.

K.N.Thangavelu, No.4/113, Kerayur, Pettapalayam Post, Namakkal District. … Respondent /Complainant.

For Appellants : M/s. K.Dhivyashree For Respondent : M/s. Muruganantham This First Appeal came up for final hearing today 03.03.2025, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellants/opposite parties and on perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following Order in the Open Court:- ORDER R.Subbiah, J. – President (Open Court)

This Appeal has been filed by the opposite parties as against the order dated 25.04.2019, passed in C.C.No.23 of 2015, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Namakkal, allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein in part.

The Appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the Respondent is the complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience the parties in the course of this order will be referred as per their respective rankings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Namakkal.

3. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that, the opposite parties are the President and Secretary of the Pettapalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. The complainant was employed as the Secretary of the said Society and later he retired from service on 31.05.2012. It is the grievance of the complainant that upon his retirement, the opposite parties have not disbursed his Provident Fund and other retirement benefits amounting to Rs.5,42,562/-. He approached the opposite parties on several occasions in this regard and also sent a notice through the Association for disbursing his Provident Fund and other retirement benefits. For which the Secretary of the opposite parties had sent a reply dated 23.07.1999 stating that only after recovering a sum of Rs.23,02,046/-, being the principal amount of Rs.10 lakhs deposited by the complainant in the Mohanur Co-operative Building Society and the accrued interest amount of Rs.13,02,046/-, they would disburse the retirement benefits to the complainant. The act of the opposite parties is against the law. Only on the directions of the President of the opposite parties Society, the complainant being the Secretary of the opposite parties Society, has deposited the amount in the Mohanur Co-operative Building Society. Further, the Administrative Council of the opposite parties Society has also accorded approval for the same. Though the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by a Circular No.10/2013 and by a letter R.C.No.51427/2013, dated 19.06.2013 and the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by an Express Memo R.C.No.3371/2013 dated 21.06.2013, have given directions to the opposite parties to disburse the retirement benefits to the employees at the earliest, the opposite parties have not obeyed the said directions. Hence, the present complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,42,562/- towards General Provident Fund, with interest at the rate of 18%, per annum and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for causing hardship to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

4. The said claim was resisted by the 2nd opposite party by filing a written version stating that the allegations made in the complaint is not correct. The complainant is put to strict proof of the allegatio