CC Filed on 29.09.2009<br /> Disposed on 12.07.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 12th day of July 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. 145/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <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 /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Sri. Dr. A.S. Sayeed,<br /> Govt. Unani Dispensary,<br /> Ayurvedic Hospital,<br /> SNR Hospital Campus,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.K. Devaraja & others)<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Medical Officer,<br /> Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital,<br /> SNR Hospital Campus,<br /> Kolar. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <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 as narrated in the complaint and submitted during arguments 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 11.03.2003 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 while working as Medical Officer, Govt. Unani Dispensary, Poolsha Mohalla, Kolar was also the Drawing Officer and that for the present he is working in Govt. Auyverdic SNR Hospital Campus Kolar and as the Administrative Officer of Govt. Auyerdic Hospital, SNR Hospital Kolar is the Drawing Officer of his pay and allowances. In the capacity of Pay Disbursing Officer he had issued undertaking letter undertaking 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. 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 and engaged the Counsel and in the capacity of Pay Disbursing Officer (OP.2) he remained absent though served with notice. OP.1 filed version. No version is filed on behalf of OP.2. <br /> <br /> 4. The version of OP.1 may be stated as follows: OP.1 admits that he obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- from complainant agreeing to repay it in installments with interest etc., as alleged in the complaint. He does not deny the issue of undertaking letter for regular deduction of installments in the capacity of Salary Disbursing Officer. <br /> <br /> 5. He contended that he has paid totally Rs.48,421/- between 06.04.2004 and 25.02.2009 on different dates and obtained receipts from complainant. He contended that the balance of Rs.64,826/- as claimed by complainant for the present towards this loan is wrong and incorrect and according to him the balance is only Rs.16,405/-. He stated that he is ready to pay the balance of Rs.16,405/- to complainant-society. Therefore he prayed for dismissal of complaint. <br /> <br /> 6. The complainant filed affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint and OP.1 has filed affidavit by way of evidence along with copies of documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for parties. <br /> <br /> 7. After considering the materials on record and submission of parties we hold that there is deficiency in service by OP.2 in not regularly paying the installments as agreed to complainant for the following reasons. <br /> <br /> 8. It is not disputed that OP.1 was himself the Pay Disbursing Authority in his previous office as well as in his present office. The loan papers disclose that Rs.50,000/- loan obtained on 11.03.2003 was repayable in 53 equal installments of Rs.1,400/- per month and the Pay Disbursing Officer had undertaken to deduct the said installments out of the salary of OP.1. The documents produced by OP.1 show that the total amount of Rs.48,421/- paid by OP.1 has been accounted for in the loan account of OP.1. This is evident from the loan ledger extract. The Learned Counsel for OP submitted that almost the entire amount paid by OP.1 is appropriated towards interest and thereby the principal remain unpaid and further he submitted that these amounts should have been appropriated towards payment of principal amount. We think that contention is incorrect. Admittedly the OP.1 has not paid the installments regularly thereby there were number of overdue installments. As per the loan agreement the OP.1 had agreed to pay interest on the overdue installments. Therefore the complainant is entitled to appropriate the amount paid by OP.1 first towards interest and the balance remain if any towards principal. We hereby clarify that in this proceedings we are not going to decide whether the appropriation of amount by complainant is right or wrong. OP.1 can approach the complainant and get the arithmetical or clerical mistakes corrected at any time in calculating the balance payable by OP.1. We are sure that inspite of payment stated by OP.1 a large amount out of loan still remains due. <br /> <br /> 9. There is no justification by OP.2 for not deducting the monthly installments as per the undertaking dated 11.03.2003. By this time the salary of OP.1 must have been considerably increased due to revision of pay and earning of increments. Therefore we think a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month out of the salary of OP.1 may be ordered to be deducted and remitted to complainant. For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP.2 is directed to deduct Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) 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 12th day of July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />