Karnataka

Kolar

CC/11/50

(1) The BEML Employees Credit Co.operative Society Limited, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Joseph Shasikanth Das - Opp.Party(s)

30 Mar 2011

ORDER

The District Consumer Redressal Forum
District Office Premises, Kolar 563 101.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/50
 
1. (1) The BEML Employees Credit Co.operative Society Limited,
Maharaj Road, Robertsonpet, K.G.F-563122, Kolar District, Rep. by its Secretary.
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

        CC Filed on 25.02.2011
         Disposed on 28.04.2011
 
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
 
Dated: 28th  day of April   2011
 
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
 
 Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
        Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
 
Consumer Complaint No. 50/2011
 
Between:
 

 
 
BEML Employees Credit
Co-operative Society (Regd.),
Maharaja Road,
Robertsonpet,
Kolar Gold Fields.
 
Represented by its:
Secretary.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
                 
 
 
 
           ….Complainant
                                                                
                                                              V/S
 
 
1. Dr. Joseph Shasikanth Das,
District Leprosy Health FWO,
Kolar.
 
 
2. The District Leprosy Officer,
Office of the District Leprosy,
Kolar.
 
 
3. The Administrative Medical Officer,
General Hospital Bangarpet,
Bangarpet.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
            
 
 
 
 
 
 
          
   ….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 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 17.12.2005 agreeing to repay the loan and interest in 54 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. Therefore we added OP.3 as a party at the time of passing order dispensing the service of notice on him.  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 to OP.1  and 2 were served and OP.1 appeared in person and submitted that at the time of obtaining the loan who was the Pay Disbursing Officer and he admits that the salary deduction certificate has been issued by him in the capacity of the then Pay Disbursing Officer.    He also submitted that for the present he is transferred to General Hospital, Bangarpet and stated that Administrative Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bangarpet is the present Pay Disbursing Officer and further stated that the installments may be deducted out of his salary.   He filed a Memo to this effect.
 
            4. In view of the consent of OP.1, it is to be held that the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for.      It is admitted that for the present OP.1 is working under OP.3.        The complainant-society had given the loan on the undertaking given by OP.2 for effecting deduction of installments out of the salary of OP.1.    That undertaking is also binding on the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer in the event of transfer of OP.1.    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 28th day of April 2011.
 
  
MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT
 
 
 
 

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.