S.V. Sekar V/S BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society(Regd.) - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Kolar

CC/10/114

BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society(Regd.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.V. Sekar - Opp.Party(s)

07 Sep 2010

ORDER

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
District Office Premises, Kolar 563 101.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/114

BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society(Regd.)						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
S.V. Sekar The Medical Officer						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(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 12.07.2010 Disposed on 24.09.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 24th day of September 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 114/2010 Between: BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. V/S 1. Sri. S.V. Sekar, Dist. Training Institute, Health Department, Backside of S.N.R Hospital, Kolar. 2. The Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kamasamudram, Bangarpet. 3. The Dist. Training Officer, Dist. Training Institute, Health Department, Backside of S.N.R Hospital, Kolar. .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 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 16.10.2004 while he was working under OP.2 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 on transfer, who is the present Pay Disbursing Officer. It is made out that OP.2 or OP.3 have 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 No.1 and 2, but did not appear and did not file any version. OP.3 is added as a party at the time of passing the order. It is felt that a specific notice is not necessary to OP.3. 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 the OPs did not file any version denying the truth of the allegations made by the complainant. The undertaking letter dated 06.10.2004 issued by OP.2 the then Pay Disbursing Officer shows that in the event of transfer of the employee he would instruct the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer to effect deduction. The affidavit of complainant shows that the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer namely OP.3 has not made such deduction which amounts to deficiency in service by OP.2 and 3. 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 24th day of September 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

CC Filed on 12.07.2010 Disposed on 24.09.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 24th day of September 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 114/2010 Between: BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. V/S 1. Sri. S.V. Sekar, Dist. Training Institute, Health Department, Backside of S.N.R Hospital, Kolar. 2. The Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kamasamudram, Bangarpet. 3. The Dist. Training Officer, Dist. Training Institute, Health Department, Backside of S.N.R Hospital, Kolar. .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 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 16.10.2004 while he was working under OP.2 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 on transfer, who is the present Pay Disbursing Officer. It is made out that OP.2 or OP.3 have 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 No.1 and 2, but did not appear and did not file any version. OP.3 is added as a party at the time of passing the order. It is felt that a specific notice is not necessary to OP.3. 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 the OPs did not file any version denying the truth of the allegations made by the complainant. The undertaking letter dated 06.10.2004 issued by OP.2 the then Pay Disbursing Officer shows that in the event of transfer of the employee he would instruct the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer to effect deduction. The affidavit of complainant shows that the subsequent Pay Disbursing Officer namely OP.3 has not made such deduction which amounts to deficiency in service by OP.2 and 3. 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 24th day of September 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT