CC Filed on 23.12.2009<br /> Disposed on 12.05.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 12th day of May 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 205/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEML Employees Credit <br /> Co-operative Society (Regd.),<br /> Maharaja Road,<br /> Robertsonpet,<br /> Kolar Gold Fields.<br /> <br /> Represented by its:<br /> Secretary. <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Smt. Munivenkatamma,<br /> Group ‘D’ Employee,<br /> Primary Health Centre, Masti,<br /> Malur Taluk,<br /> Kolar District.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Lay Secretary,<br /> S.N.R. Hospital,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The Administrative Medical Officer,<br /> Primary Health Centre, Masti,<br /> Malur Taluk,<br /> Kolar District. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> 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 OP.2 and to credit the same to complainant-society with costs, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> 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 11.12.2007 while she was working at S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar 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 in Primary Health Centre, Masti, Malur Taluk and OP.3 is the present Pay Disbursing Officer. Therefore at the time of passing this order OP.3 is impleaded to avoid the delay. 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. <br /> <br /> 3. The notice issued by this Forum to OP.2 under RPAD was served and OP.2 appeared and filed version stating that from June 2008 OP.1 is transferred to P.H.C, Masti and she is working there and OP.2 has intimated the present Pay Disbursing Officer (OP.3) to recover the loan installments, etc., OP.2 has further stated that the installments were regularly deducted at the rate of Rs.1,400/- up to the end of May 2008. The notice issued to OP.1 returned with endorsement that she has transferred to P.H.C, Masti. Considering the facts of the case and reply filed by OP.2, we felt that fresh notices to OP.1 and OP.3 are not necessary. The complainant filed affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The averments in the complaint may be believed to be true as the OP.2 admitted the material averments made in the complaint. The undertaking letter dated 11.12.2007 issued by OP.2 the then Pay Disbursing Officer shows that in the event of transfer of the employee he would instruct the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer to effect deduction. The affidavit of complainant shows that the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer namely OP.3 has not made such deduction which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 12th day of May 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />