Karnataka

Kolar

CC/10/60

The BEML Employees Credit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansuya (Group 'D') - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2010

ORDER


The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
District Office Premises, Kolar 563 101.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/60

The BEML Employees Credit
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Administrative Medical Officer
Ansuya (Group 'D')
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

CC Filed on 11.05.2010 Disposed on 23.09.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 23rd day of September 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 60/2010 Between: BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. ….Complainant V/S 1. Smt. Annusiya, Group ‘D’ Primary Health Centre, Holur, Srinivasapura Taluk. 2. The Administrative Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Holur. 3. The Administrative Medical Officer (Secretary) S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar. ….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.3 to effect prompt deduction of the loan installments as undertaken by OP.2 and to credit the same to complainant-society with costs, etc., 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows: 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 17.04.2003 while he was working under OP.2 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 was working under OP.2, who was Pay Disbursing Officer and that the said officer 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 he failed to deduct the said installments as undertaken and to remit to complainant-society and that he had also undertaken to instruct the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer to effect the deduction in the event of the transfer of OP.1 to any other place. It is made out that for the present OP.1 has been working under OP.3, who is the present Pay Disbursing Officer. It is made out that OP.2 or OP.3 has not effected deduction of installments and 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. Originally the complaint is filed only against OP.1 and 2. The notices issued to them were served. OP.1 remained absent. However OP.2 appeared and stated that for the present OP.1 is transferred to S.N.R Hospial, Kolar and admitted the issue of undertaking letter dated 17.04.2003 agreeing to deduct the installments out of the monthly salary of OP.1. Therefore at the time of order we impleaded OP.3 the present Pay Disbursing Officer. The complainant filed affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. 4. The averments in the complaint may be believed to be true as the OPs did not file any version denying the truth of the allegations of the complainant. The undertaking letter dated 17.04.2003 issued by OP.2 is an admitted fact and it shows that in the event of transfer of the employee he would instruct the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer to effect deduction. The affidavit of complainant shows that the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer namely OP.3 has not made such deduction which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed. OP.3 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. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 23rd day of September 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT