CC Filed on 19.02.2011
Disposed on 12.05.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 12th day of May 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 37/2011
Between:
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. Sri. K.S. Ramamurthy, 182/06, Govt.LowerPrimary School, BathagowdanurVillage, Bangarpet. 2. The Head Master, Govt.LowerPrimary School, BathagowdanurVillage, Bangarpet. 3. The Block Educational Officer, 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.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 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 24.06.2004 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.3 is the Pay Disbursing Officer instead of OP.2 as per the administrative instruction issued by the concerned Department. 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.1 to3. But they did not appear and did not file any version. The complainant filed affidavit supporting its claim.
4. The averments made in the complaint are not denied by the OPs, though they were served with notices of this complaint. The complainant has produced copy of the undertaking letter dated 18.06.2004 issued by OP.2. The complainant has also produced other relevant documents prepared at the time of grant of loan. The documents produced by complainant along with the affidavit in support of the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to hold that the averments made in the complaint may be taken as true. It is established that for the present OP.3 is the Pay Disbursing Officer. The non-payment of installments which became due, out of the salary payable to complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.2 and 3. 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 12th day of May 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
