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. 81/2011
Between:
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. V/S 1. Sri. N. Radhakrishnan, Govt. Kannada Higher Primary School, Budukurki, Kongara Halli, KGFRange. 2. The Block Educational Officer, Robertsonpet, KGF. | ….Complainant ….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 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 11.03.2004 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 OP.2 did not effect 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 notice issued by this Forum to OP.2 was served, but he did not appear and did not file any version. The RPAD notice issued to OP.1 did not return or the acknowledgement of service also did not return. Therefore the service of notice on OP.1 is taken as sufficient. OP.1 remained absent and did not file any version. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint.
4. The averments in the complaint may be believed to be true as OP.1 and 2 have not filed any version. OP.2 has not denied the issuing of undertaking letter for deducting the monthly installments out of the salary of OP.1. The undertaking letter in question is not produced by complainant and it is submitted that the same is misplaced and it is not readily traced. It is pointed out that OP.2 has given the salary certificate relating to OP.1 under his seal and signature. The said salary certificate is produced by complainant. In view of the above facts we believe that OP.2 had issued the undertaking letter as alleged. OP.2 has not effected the deduction of installments as undertaken, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed. OP.2 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
