CC Filed on 11.05.2010<br /> Disposed on 26.10.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 26th day of October 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. 63/2010<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. Sri. N. Narayanaswamy,<br /> Taluk Panchayat,<br /> Bangarpet.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. M. Devaraja)<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Executive Officer,<br /> Taluk Panchayat,<br /> Bangarpet.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The Executive Officer,<br /> Taluk Panchayat,<br /> Mulbagal. <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 08.01.2003 while he was working under OP.2 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. <br /> <br /> 3. The notices issued by this Forum were served on OP No.1 to 3, OP.2 remained absent and has not filed any version. The representative of OP.3 appeared and submitted that for the present OP.1 is getting nearly Rs.10,000/- per month towards his salary, but no version is filed on behalf of OP.3. OP.1 appeared through Advocate and did not file any version. 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 OPs did not file any version denying the truth of the allegations made in the complaint. The undertaking letter dated 01.01.2003 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. At the time of sanction of the loan the gross salary of OP.1 was nearly Rs.5,000/- per month. It appears OP.1 is now getting gross salary of Rs.10,000/-. The notices issued by complainant demanding repayment of loan and interest shows that only a few installments were paid to the loan account of OP.1. Therefore we think the installment may be enhanced to Rs.2,500/- per month. 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.2,500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred only) 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 26th day of October 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />