CC Filed on 19.02.2011
Disposed on 29.06.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 29th day of June 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 31/2011
Between:
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. V/S 1. Sri. K.B. Chalapathy, First Division Assistant, B.E.O Office, Kolar. 2. The Block Educational Officer, K.G.F.Range, K.G.F. 3. The Block Educational Officer, KolarRange, Kolar. | ….Complainant ….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 29.11.2002 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. 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.2 and OP.3, but they remained absent and they did not file any version. Notice issued under RPAD to OP.1 was returned unserved stating that addressee was on leave. Considering the facts of the case the service of notice on OP.1 is taken as sufficient. He has not appeared and has not filed any version. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of allegations made in the complaint.
4. The averments in the complaint may be believed to be true as the OPs did not appear and did not file any version. The undertaking letter dated 28.11.2002 issued by OP.2 states that he would deduct the installments out of the salary of OP.1 and would credit the same to complainant-society. Further it shows that in the event of transfer of OP.1 he would intimate the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer to effect the deductions. The evidence of complainant shows that OP.2 or OP.3 has not effected any deductions as undertaken, 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 29th day of June 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
