CC Filed on 14.09.2010
Disposed on 10.12.2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 10th day of December 2010
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 183/2010
Between:
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. V/S 1. Sri. Prem Kumar, Primary Health Centre, Rajendera Halli, Kottaka Halli, Mulbagal. 2. The Lay Secretary, S.N.RHospital, Kolar. 3. The Administrative Medical Officer, Rajendera Halli, Kottaka Halli, Mulbagal. | ….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 as undertaken by him 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 09.05.2003 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 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.
3. The notices issued by this Forum were served on OP.1 and 2. OP.2 appeared and filed version stating that for the present OP.1 has been transferred to P.H.C Rajendrahalli and the Pay Disbursing Officer at P.H.C Rajendrahalli has been informed to effect monthly deduction of Rs.1,400/- out of the salary of OP.1. OP.2 has further stated that till the transfer of OP.1 the deduction was regularly effected. Therefore OP.2 stated that appropriate direction may be issued to OP.3. In view of the facts stated by OP.2 we added OP.3 as an additional party at the time of passing this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case we dispense with the notice to OP.3. The complainant filed affidavit supporting its claim.
4. OP.1 remained absent though served with notice. OP.2 admitted the averments made in the complaint regarding the undertaking given for monthly deduction of installments out of the salary of OP.1. Considering the above facts we think the complaint may be allowed with direction to OP.3 to effect deduction. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed. OP.3 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 10th day of December 2010.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
