Karnataka

Kolar

CC/10/52

The BEML Employees Credit - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.Ravi Prakash - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jun 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/10/52

The BEML Employees Credit
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Asst Director
Asst. Director
K.Ravi Prakash
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

CC Filed on 11.05.2010 Disposed on 17.06.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 17th day of June 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 52/2010 Between: BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. ….Complainant V/S 1. Sri. K. Ravi Prakash, Technical Service Centre, Vemgal. 2. The Asst. Director, Technical Service Centre, Vemgal. 3. The Asst. Director, Cocoon Market (Sericulture) Keylanoor, Kolar District. ….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 him 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 22.07.2003 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 was working under OP.2 who was Pay Disbursing Officer at the time of obtaining the loan 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 had further undertaken to intimate the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer to effect the deduction in the event of the transfer of OP.1 to any other office. Further it is alleged that for the present OP.1 is working under OP.3 on transfer from the office of OP.2. Further it is alleged that OP.3 failed to deduct the said installments as required 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, OP.1 appeared and engaged the Counsel and OP.2 and OP.3 appeared and OP.2 admitted the issue of undertaking letter as alleged in the complaint. OP.3 submitted that in the LPC of OP.1 this deduction was not shown on transfer of OP.1 to his office, therefore he did not come to know regarding the deduction to be made. OP.3 has further submitted that OP.1 is working under him and for the present OP.1 is deputed on OOD to Manvi, but he is the Pay Disbursing Officer. The notice issued to OP.1 not returned. 4. The averments in the complaint may be believed to be true in view of the submission made by OP.2 and OP.3. The undertaking given by OP.2 dated 22.07.2003 states that OP.2 would regularly deduct the installments out of the salary of OP.1 and in the event of transfer of OP.1 he would be intimate the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer to deduct the installments. For the present it is found that OP.2 had not complied with the undertaking, thereby OP.3 did not come to know regarding deduction to be made. The said violation of the undertaking amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed. OP.3- The Asst. Director, Cocoon Market (Sericulture), Keylanoor 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 17th day of June 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT