CC Filed on 12.07.2010<br /> Disposed on 19.11.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 19th day of November 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 120/2010<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> BEML Employees Credit <br /> Co-operative Society (Regd.),<br /> Maharaja Road,<br /> Robertsonpet,<br /> Kolar Gold Fields.<br /> <br /> Represented by its:<br /> Secretary. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Smt. Akther Sayeeda Khanum,<br /> Al Amen Dr. Mumtaj Ahmed Khan<br /> Pre University College,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Drawing Officer,<br /> Al Amen Dr. Mumtaj Ahmed Khan<br /> Pre University College,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> 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.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant is a credit co-operative society and OP.1 who is working as a government servant, is an associate member of complainant society and that OP.1 had borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 23.03.2004 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.1 has been working under OP.2 who is Pay Disbursing Officer and that 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 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. <br /> <br /> 3. In response to the notices issued by this Forum, OP.1 appeared through counsel and filed version and OP.2 has not claimed the notice sent under RPAD. The service of notice on OP.2 is taken as sufficient. OP.2 did not file any version. <br /> <br /> OP.1 in her version has admitted the borrowing of loan and contended that the entire loan amount has been repaid to complainant and nothing is due towards that loan. She denied the other allegations made in the complaint. She also contended that complaint is barred by time. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint and produced copies of relevant documents. OP.1 did not lead any evidence. She had produced copies of certain receipts for having paid different amounts shown in the receipts to complainant. We heard the complainant. OP.1 or her counsel was absent. <br /> <br /> 5. After considering the records we hold that the OP.1 has failed to prove the defences taken by her for the following reasons. <br /> <br /> OP.1 pleaded that the loan has been entirely repaid. She produced copies of a few receipts issued by complainant. The amounts mentioned in these receipts comes to a fraction of loan amount towards a few installments. OP.1 has not produced any other evidence to establish that entire loan was repaid. <br /> <br /> OP.1 contended that OP.2 had not issued undertaking letter as alleged in the complaint, but the copy of salary certificate relating to OP.1 and the copy of undertaking letter shown to have been issued by OP.2, show that OP.2 must have issued these documents under his hand and seal as Pay Disbursing Officer. The competent person to say whether undertaking letter is issued or not, was OP.2 but OP.2 remained absent and did not file any version or evidence. Therefore we believe the allegation made in the complaint in this regard. <br /> <br /> The OP.1 contended that the claim is barred by time. The loan was granted on 23.03.2004 it was repayable in 53 monthly installments. It can also be seen that there is payment of Rs.3,000/- on 16.12.2008 by OP.1 towards part payment principal and interest and the said payment is signed by OP.1 on the receipt issued by complainant. The limitation for recovery of loan starts from this date of part payment. It can also be seen that the loan was repayable in 53 monthly installments. Therefore the limitation starts from the date of default in repaying the installments on different months. Therefore we hold that the claim is not barred by time. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP.2 is directed to deduct Rs.1,400/- 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. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 19th day of November 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />