CC Filed on 11.05.2010<br /> Disposed on 24.09.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 24th day of September 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. 58/2010<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 /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Sri. Narasimhappa,<br /> Watcher,<br /> Range Forest Office,<br /> Social Forest Range,<br /> Bangarpet.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Range Forest Officer,<br /> Social Forest Range,<br /> Bangarpet.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<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.2 to effect prompt deduction of the loan installments as undertaken by him 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 08.05.2003 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 has been working under OP.2 who is Pay Disbursing Officer and that OP.2 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 OP.2 failed to deduct the said installments as undertaken and to remit to complainant-society. It is alleged 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. In response to the notices issued by this Forum, OP.1 appeared and filed version and OP.2 remained absent though served with notice. The complainant filed affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. OP.1 did not file any affidavit within the time allowed. <br /> <br /> 4. The OP.1 in his version admitted the borrowing of loan and he has not disputed the execution of several documents alleged in the complaint. OP.1 contended that he has repaid the entire amount due and that the complainant-society is not in the habit of issuing receipts for the amount received and that the complainant manipulated the ledger maintained by it to file this false case. OP.1 has further contended that this Forum has not jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the dispute should have been agitated before Assistant Registrar under Co-operative Societies Act. He also contended that the complaint is barred by law of limitation. <br /> <br /> 5. We heard the complainant. OP.1 was absent on the date of last hearing. <br /> <br /> 6. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: Whether OP.1 proves that he has repaid the entire<br /> loan amount?<br /> <br /> Point No.2: Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain<br /> the complaint?<br /> <br /> Point No.3: Whether the complaint is barred by time?<br /> <br /> Point No.4: To what order?<br /> <br /> 7. After considering the records our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: The OP.1 has not led any evidence in support of his contention that he repaid the entire loan amount. According to the complainant-society Rs.32,015/- is due as on 30.04.2010. The complainant submitted that it has maintained regular account for receipts and payments and all the receipts and payments are documented. The say of OP.1 that the complainant is not in the habit of issuing receipts and it has manipulated the ledger and loan account appears to be prima-facie unacceptable in the absence of any evidence or circumstance. Hence we hold point No.1 in negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2: The complainant alleged that reposing confidence on OP.2 that he would deduct monthly installments out of the salary of OP.1 the loan was granted and OP.2 committed breach of the terms stated in the undertaking letter. The undertaking letter dated 26.03.2003 issued by OP.2 states that OP.2 would credit the loan installments to complainant out of the salary payable to OP.1 and that in the event of transfer of OP.1 he would intimate the subsequent Pay Disbursing Authority to effect deduction. However it is not shown that OP.2 had made regular deductions as undertaken by him. The violation of such term by OP.2 amounts to deficiency in service. The arranging of loan to OP.1 on the basis of the undertaking of OP.2 is the consideration for such agreement between complainant and OP.2. Even if the complainant is entitled to proceed under the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act against OP.1, it can be said that the complainant is not barred from filing the present case when there is deficiency in service by OP.2. It may be true that in the present proceedings OP.1 may only be a proper party, but not a necessary party. Hence we hold point No.2 in negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.3: The loan was repayable in monthly installments. It can be said that number of installments were paid to the loan account of OP.1, thereby the present liability is only Rs.32,015/- as on 30.04.2010. Totally 53 installments were granted from the date of loan. The cause of action arises during every installment becoming due. Therefore we hold that the complaint is not barred by time. Accordingly point No.3 is held in negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.4: For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 24th day of September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />