The BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. - Complainant(s)
Versus
Narasimmappa - Opp.Party(s)
10 Nov 2009
ORDER
THE DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM No.419, Ist Floor,. H.N. Gowda Building, M.B.Road, Kolar-563101 consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/151
The BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Medical Officer Narasimmappa
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
CC Filed on 29.09.2009 Disposed on 11.12.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 11th day of December 2009 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 151/2009 Between: BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. .Complainant V/S 1. Sri. Narasimmappa, Primary Health Centre, Mulbagal Post, Kolar District. 2. The Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Mulbagal Post, Kolar District. .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 as undertaken by him and to credit the same to complainant-society with costs, etc., 2. The material facts of complainants 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 05.06.2004 agreeing to repay the loan and interest in 53 monthly installments of Rs.1,400/-. Further that OP.1 has been working under OP.2 who is Pay Disbursing Officer and that OP.2 had undertaken by his letter dated 05.06.2004 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. 3. In response to the notice issued by this Forum, OP No.1 remained absent and one Dr. Venkatesh in-charge of OP.2 appeared and subsequently he also remained absent and the OPs have not filed any version. 4. The averments in the complaint may be believed to be true as OPs did not contest the case inspite of service of notices. The undertaking given by OP.2 and the violation of it 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 11th day of December 2009. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
