BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.) filed a consumer case on 25 Mar 2010 against P.Stalin, in the Kolar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/09/75 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Karnataka
Kolar
CC/09/75
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.) - Complainant(s)
Versus
P.Stalin, - Opp.Party(s)
25 Mar 2010
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/09/75
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.)
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Executive Officer P.Stalin,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
CC Filed on 08.09.2009 Disposed on 19.04.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 19th day of April 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 75/2009 Between: BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. .Complainant V/S 1. Mr. P. Stalin, Taluk Panchayath, Bangarpet Taluk, Bangarpet. 2. The Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Bangarpet Taluk, Bangarpet. .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 02.01.2003 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. 3. In response to the notices issued by this Forum, OP.2 appeared and filed his reply stating that OP.1 has been suspended with effect from 01.09.2008 and thereafter he is being paid only the subsistence allowance, therefore the installments payable to complainant could not be deducted and remitted to complainant. Notice on OP.1 could not be served as he was not attending the office from the date of suspension. The complainant filed affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. 4. The averments in the complaint may be believed to be true as OP.2 did not deny the issue of undertaking letter, undertaking to deduct the installments out of the salary of complainant and to remit the same to complainant, etc., The OP.2 is liable to deduct the installments which fell due in case the suspension is revoked and OP.1 is ordered to be paid the back wages. 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 including the installments that fell due from the date of suspension of OP.1, in case OP.1 is reinstated with back wages. The parties shall bear their own costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 19th day of April 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.