The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum District Office Premises, Kolar 563 101. consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/57
The beml Employees Credit
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
A.S. Shivakumar Head Postmaster Sub Post Master
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
CC Filed on 11.05.2010 Disposed on 12.07.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 12th day of July 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 57/2010 Between: BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. V/S 1. Sri. A.S. Shivakumar, Postman, BEML Nagar SO, K.G.F. 2. The Sub-Post Master, BEML Nagar, K.G.F. 3. Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Kolar. .Complainant .Opposite Parties ORDERS This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party No.2 to effect prompt deduction of the loan installments as undertaken by him and to credit the same to complainant-society with costs, etc., 2. The material facts of complainants case may be stated as follows: That the complainant is a credit co-operative society and OP.1 who is working as a Postman under OP.2, is an associate member of complainant-society and that OP.1 had borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 13.03.2003 agreeing to repay the loan and interest in 53 monthly installments of Rs.1,400/- and in default agreeing to pay overdue interest at one and a quarter time the ordinary rate of interest from the due date to the date of regularization of payment. Further that OP.2 is Pay Disbursing Officer of OP.1 and OP.2 had undertaken to deduct the installments becoming due out of the salary payable to OP.1 and to remit the same to complainant-society and in the event of transfer of OP.1 to intimate the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer to deduct the installments and to credit the same to complainant-society. It is alleged that OP.2 failed to deduct the said installments as undertaken and to remit to complainant-society. It is alleged that OP.1 has also failed to repay the loan and the installments. It is alleged that for the present certain amount is outstanding in the said loan account of OP.1. 3. In response to the notices issued by this Forum, OP.1 appeared in person but did not file any version. However he admitted for deduction of Rs.1,000/- per month. 4. On behalf OP.2 Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices (R), Kolar appeared and filed version. The version is signed by Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kolar Division, Kolar. It is contended that the OP.2-Sub Post Master, BEML Nagar P.O. K.G.F was/is not the Pay Disbursing Officer and he was not authorized by any higher officers to deduct any amount from the salary of employees working under him and that OP.2 is not competent to give such undertaking alleged in the complaint for salary deduction. Further it is contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and OP.2 and that the complaint is barred by time. Therefore it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 5. We heard the parties and perused the records. 6. It is not denied that OP.2-the Sub Post Master, BEML Nagar P.O. K.G.F under whom OP.1 was working, had issued undertaking letter dated 06.03.2003 in favour of complainant as alleged in the complaint. A copy of undertaking letter is produced along with complaint. It is not the case of OP.2 that the undertaking letter in question is a forged document created by some one. It can also be believed that OP.1 is working as Postman in Postal Department. It is submitted during argument that for the present OP.1 is working at BEML Nagar, K.G.F and is drawing salary nearly Rs.12,000/- per month. In his salary certificate 06.03.2003 the gross salary was shown as Rs.5,688/- p.m. As the undertaking letter was issued by Sub Post Master, BEML Nagar P.O. the complainant granted the loan to OP.1. Subsequent to the grant of loan OP.1 had also paid certain installments towards repayment of loan. In such circumstance we think the Postal Department cannot deny its liability to effect deduction of salary and to credit the same to complainant-society as undertaken by OP.2. If the Pay Disbursing Officer of OP.1 is the Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Kolar, the said official is to be directed to perform the terms of undertaking given by OP.2. It is left to the Head Post Master to take such action as may be required against OP.2 for giving such undertaking letter in the capacity of Pay Disbursing Officer. Therefore we implead Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Kolar as OP.3 in this proceeding at the time of passing this order. It is true that there is no fault or deficiency in service on the part of Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Kolar. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we think it is just and necessary to direct OP.3 to effect deduction out of the salary of OP.1 and to credit the same to complainant-society. Considering the hike in salary of OP.1 the deduction out of the salary may be ordered at Rs.1,400/- per month. 7. It is contended on behalf of OPs that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider as between complainant and OP.2. We think this submission is not correct. On the basis of undertaking given by OP.2 the loan was granted to OP.1. The consideration for the undertaking given by OP.2, is the granting of loan to OP.1 by complainant. Such consideration is a valid consideration under Law. If such undertaking is not carried out as per its terms certainly there is deficiency in service as defined under section 2 (1) g of C.P. Act 1986. Therefore we hold that there is relationship of consumer and service provider as between complainant and OP.2. 8. It is further submitted that the complaint is barred by time. In the case of fraud or mistake the limitation starts from the date of tracing the fraud or mistake. In the present case, OP.2 had issued the undertaking either mistakenly or with intend to deceive the complainant. The complainant came to know such defect in the undertaking letter only after the filing of the version by OP.2. It can also be seen that the loan was repayable in 53 installments, therefore the cause of action arises on the date of each installment becoming due. Therefore we hold that the complaint is not barred by time. In the circumstances of the case we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed. OP.3-The Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Kolar is directed to deduct Rs.1,400/- (rupees one thousand four hundred only) per month out of the monthly salary payable to OP.1 and to credit the same to complainant-society till the closure of loan. The parties shall bear their own costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 12th day of July 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
