The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum District Office Premises, Kolar 563 101. consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/202
The BEML Employees Credit
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Administrative Medical Officer B.Jaganath
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
CC Filed on 23.12.2009 Disposed on 26.10.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 26th day of October 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 202/2009 Between: BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. .Complainant V/S 1. Sri. B. Jaganath, S.N.R Hospital, Kolar. 2. The Administrative Medical Officer, Govt. General Hospital, Bangarpet. 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 complainants 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 26.05.2004 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. Hence OP.3 is added as an opposite party at the time of passing this order. 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. The notices issued by this Forum were served on OP No.1 and 2 but they remained absent. They have also not filed any version. 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 OP No.1 and 2 did not file any version denying the truth of the allegations of the complainant. The undertaking letter dated 03.02.2004 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: 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 26th day of October 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
