CC Filed on 26.03.2011
Disposed on 27.06.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 27th day of June 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 89/2011
Between:
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. Sri. M. Venkatesh, Govt. Higher Primary School, Byalahalli, Kolar. 2. The Head Master, Govt. Higher Primary School, Byalahalli, Kolar. 3. The Block Educational Officer, Kolar Taluk, Kolar. | ….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 23.02.2006 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, however as per the departmental instructions OP.3 was the Pay Disbursing Officer and he 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 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 did not appear and did not file any version. The notice sent through RPAD to OP.1 or the acknowledgement of service did not return. Therefore the service of notice on OP.1 is taken as sufficient. OP.1 was absent and he did not file any version. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of his contention.
4. The complainant-society had given the loan on the undertaking given by OP.3 for effecting deduction of installments out of the salary of OP.1. That undertaking is binding on the Pay Disbursing Officer. The undertaking letter issued by OP.3 is proved by complainant. The zerox copy of the said undertaking letter is produced. The affidavit of complainant establishes the truth of the averments made in the complaint. The conduct of OP.3 in not deducting the installments as undertaken 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 27th day of June 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
