CC Filed on 01.10.2010
Disposed on 27.12.2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 27th day of December 2010
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 206/2010
Between:
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. V/S 1. Sri. R. Prasad, Govt. Kannada Higher Primary School, Hangala, BangarpetRange. 2. The Head Master, Govt. Kannada Higher Primary School, Hangala, BangarpetRange. 3. The Block Educational Officer, BangarpetRange, Bangarpet. | ….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.3 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.30,000/- on 28.06.2004 agreeing to repay the loan and interest in 36 monthly installments of Rs.1,150/- 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 that OP.3 is designated as Pay Disbursing Officer in place of OP.2. Therefore we added OP.3 as an additional opposite party at the time of passing this order. 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.1 appeared through Counsel but did not file version within the time granted. OP.2 remained absent. He has also not filed any version. The complainant filed affidavit supporting its claim.
4. The documents produced by complainant along with the averments in the complaint and in the affidavit establish that OP.1 had borrowed the loan as alleged and OP.2 who was the then Pay Disbursing Officer had undertaken to deduct the loan installments from the monthly salary of OP.1 and had also undertaken to intimate the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer to deduct the installments in the event of the transfer of OP.1 to any other place. The undertaking letter issued by OP.2 establishes this fact. For the present OP.3 is designated as Pay Disbursing Officer in place of OP.2. Therefore we think there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.2 and OP.3, in not deducting the loan installments as undertaken. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed. OP.3 is directed to deduct Rs.1,150/- 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 December 2010.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
