ORDER

(21/08/2024)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani – Member:

(1) Appellant has filed present appeal against the order dated 29th January, 2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolhapur in Complaint No.102 of 2018.

(2) Facts of the original case are as under:

a) The Appellants/original opponents state that the Original Complaint was filed by the Original Complainant which is registered as Consumer complaint No.102 of 2018 before the Learned District Consumer forum, at Kolhapur, wherein the Learned District Consumer Forum pl3ased to allow the complaint partly in favour of the Original Complainant and directed to the Appellant Bank to pay the amount of Rs.3,12,021/- with 7% interest which was withdrawn from the account of the Original Complainant and also pay the amount of Rs.32,186/- and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony and pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The order of the Learned District Consumer forum passed in consumer complaint No.102/2018 annexed herewith and marked as “Exhibit A”.

b) That one Mr.Anant Gajanan Deshpande was an employee of the bank. And he tendered his resignation and relieved from the services of the bank from the date of 31/07/2017. That after retirement the amount of service benefits was deposited in the account of the original complainant. That one Mr.Santosh Kore was an employee of the bank wherein he had taken personal loan and the original complainant was guarantor for that loan. That there was arrears of that loan and the bank filed co-operative dispute against Mr.Kore and against original complainant and against the other guarantor as they were defaulter. That the dispute was decided in favour of the bank. That the bank filed recovery proceedings against Mr.Kore, against original complainant and against the other guarantor. That the recovery officer following due process of law and process laid down in section 107 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, attached the amount from the account of original complainant and other guarantor and deposited the said amount in the account of the appellant bank. That the original complainant failed to made grievance against recovery proceedings and filed revision application before the appellate authority prescribed under the MCS Act. Hence, it is crystal clear that, the original complainant was satisfied with the order passed by the recovery officer.

c) That the original complainant filed the complaint against withdrawal the amount from the personal account. It was case of the original opponent was that, the recovery of the amount was made by the authority of the Co-operative Department as per Section 107 of the MCS Act, 1960. That the original complainant made argument that, the amount of gratuity cannot be attached and the bank attached the amount of the gratuity and the said amount be paid to him. That the defense of the original complainant was that the said defense was taken against the pleadings of the complainant. That the original Complainant was defaulter and the recovery officer recovered the amount through the personal account of the original complainant by following due process of law.

d) That it is submission of the original opponent is that, if rely upon the defense of the original complainant, then also the said defense is not reliable for the reason that, that as per the pleadings at para No.5 of the original complaint, the original complainant had received the amount of Rs.2,68,822/- on 02/11/2017 as the amount of leave salary and on 17/11/2017 he had received the amount of Rs.7,94,365/- as amount of gratuity and it is deposited in his personal account maintained in the appellant bank. That it means the amount of gratuity and amount of leave salary if tallied then the total figure of the amount will be of Rs.10,63,187/-. That the recovery officer recovered the amount of Rs.3,12,021/- only. That if gone through the observations made by the Learned District Consumer Forum, t