CC Filed on 11.05.2010<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. 68/2010<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. Sri. B.G. Prabhakar,<br /> Accounts Superintendent,<br /> Sub-Treasury Srinivaspur,<br /> Srinivaspur Taluk,<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The District Treasury Officer,<br /> District Treasury,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The Treasury Officer,<br /> Sub-Treasury Srinivaspur,<br /> Srinivaspur Taluk.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <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.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.,<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.25,000/- on 22.09.2003 while he was working under OP.2 agreeing to repay the loan and interest in 35 monthly installments of Rs.1,000/- 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 on transfer has been working under OP.3, who is the present Pay Disbursing Officer. It is made out that OP.3 has also 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. <br /> <br /> 3. The notice issued by this Forum to OP.2 was served and OP.2 informed in writing that for the present OP.1 is working as Accounts Superintendent at Sub-Treasury Srinivispaur w.e.f 09.05.2010 and it was admitted that the undertaking letter for deduction of salary was issued and signed by the then District Treasury Officer, Kolar. Notice issued under RPAD to OP.1 to his present address at Sub-Treasury, Srinivaspur returned unserved on the ground that the addressee was found not attending the office. Hence the service of notice on OP.1 is taken as sufficient. He remained absent and did not file any version. Notice was not sent to OP.3 thinking that it was not necessary. The complainant produced the required documents and filed affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The averments in the complaint may be believed to be true as OP.1 did not file any version denying the truth of the allegations made in the compliant. The documents produced by complainant along with the version stated by OP.2 makes it clear that OP.1 had borrowed the loan as averred in the complaint. The undertaking letter dated 02.09.2003 issued by OP.2 the then Pay Disbursing Officer 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:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP.3 is directed to deduct Rs.1,000/- 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. The copy of the order to be sent to OP.3 for compliance. <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 />