AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
APPELLANTS were the complainants before the State Commission, where they have filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service.
VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the complainants were the employees of the respondent/O.P. Bank, which went into liquidation. An administrator was appointed. Much of the staff including the complainants were retrenched by the administrator. They were paid retrenchment compensation. The complaint of the complainants was that they had taken housing loans, being Bank employees but they are now unable to pay their dues because of loss of service, they wanted relaxation as far as loan amount is concerned. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who dismissed the complaint as not filed within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us. None was present despite service of notice, hence we go on to pass the orders based on material on record. Basic facts are not in dispute that the respondent Bank was liquidated and administrator was appointed and retrenchment compensation as per the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act was given. That they had taken ''Housing'' loan and if they look for any relaxation and it being not agreed to by the respondent, does not amount to any type of ''deficiency in service'' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Liquidator is supposed to work within the four walls of law, and there is no dispute, that necessary dues were given to them as per law. If they look for something more and the respondent is not inclined to do so, it will not amount to deficiency in service. The State Commission was quite correct in holding that this is not a consumer dispute falling within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. We see no merit in this appeal, hence dismissed. Appeal dismissed.