BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.) filed a consumer case on 11 Feb 2010 against D.Bhaskar in the Kolar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/09/85 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Karnataka
Kolar
CC/09/85
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.) - Complainant(s)
Versus
D.Bhaskar - Opp.Party(s)
11 Feb 2010
ORDER
THE DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM No.419, Ist Floor,. H.N. Gowda Building, M.B.Road, Kolar-563101 consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/85
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.)
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
D.Bhaskar Sub Post Master
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
CC Filed on 06.11.2009 Disposed on 30.03.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 30th day of March 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 85/2009 Between: BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. .Complainant V/S 1. Sri. D. Bhaskar, No. 150, D Block, Champion Reef, Kolar Gold Fields. 2. Sub Post Master, BEML Nagar, Kolar Gold Fields. .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 government servant, 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.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. 3. In response to the notices issued by this Forum, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices of Kolar Division, Kolar appeared and filed version on behalf of OP.2. It is stated in the version that OP.1 is not working for the present in Postal Department and his whereabouts are not known. On 25.03.2010 the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices of Kolar Division, Kolar also submitted that OP.1 was removed from service for unauthorized absence about 4-5 years back. He also submitted that OP.2 was not the Pay Disbursing Officer and he could not have undertaken to deduct the installments out of the salary of OP.1. The notice issued to OP.1 returned on the ground that the addressee left the address. 4. The present case was filed for the deficiency on the part of OP.2 assuming that he was Pay Disbursing Officer of OP.1. It is found that he was not the Pay Disbursing Officer. Apart from it, it is also found that OP.1 was removed from service about 4-5 years back. In such circumstance the complainant has to approach some other Authority for its remedy. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 30th day of March 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.