Karnataka

Kolar

CC/09/213

The BEML Employees Credit - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Narayanappa - Opp.Party(s)

08 Apr 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/09/213

The BEML Employees Credit
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

S.Narayanappa
Superintendent
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

CC Filed on 23.12.2009 Disposed on 30.04.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 30th day of April 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 213/2009 Between: BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. ….Complainant V/S 1. Sri. S. Narayanappa, Govt. Juvenile Home, Maskam, Andersonpet, K.G.F – 563 113. 2. The Superintendent, Govt. Juvenile Home, Maskam, Andersonpet, K.G.F – 563 113. ….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 30.01.2003 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 version stating that complainant has not produced the alleged undertaking letter issued by the then Pay Disbursing Officer of OP.1 and that there was long delay in making this complaint and that after he assuming the office there was no communication from complainant regarding failure to deduct the installments out of the salary of OP.1. Therefore he contended that the case may be dismissed as against him. OP.1 appeared in person and admitted the receipt of loan and submitted that he would pay the balance if the rate of interest is reduced and further he stated he paid about Rs.20,000/- towards repayment of loan and interest. The complainant filed affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. 4. The complainant was asked to produce the undertaking letter said to have been issued by the then Pay Disbursing Officer of OP.1. It is submitted on behalf of complainant that the said undertaking letter is not readily available and it is misplaced. However the OP.1 who was present before this Forum admitted that he had handedover the undertaking letter issued by the then Pay Disbursing Officer by name one Venkatesh. In view of the admission of OP.2 it cannot be doubted that there was such undertaking by the Pay Disbursing Officer and for one or other reason the installments were not deducted as undertaken. The OP.1 who was present before this Forum orally submitted that Rs.2,000/- per month may be deducted out of his monthly salary. He was made known that this Forum cannot reduce the agreed rate of interest between parties and he can negotiate with complainant. 5. In the above facts and circumstances we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed. OP.2-The Superintendent, Govt. Juvenile Home, Muskam, K.G.F is directed to deduct Rs.2,000/- 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 30th day of April 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT