CC Filed on 01.10.2010
Disposed on 07.01.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 07th day of January 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 201/2010
Between:
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. Sri. Seetha Naidu, Driver, CityMunicipality Council, Robertsonpet, K.G.F – 563 122. 2. The Commissioner, CityMunicipality Council, Robertsonpet, K.G.F – 563 122. | ….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 01.06.2005 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.1 appeared in person and prayed time to file version, but subsequently he remained absent and did not file any version. OP.2 was served but remained absent. 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.1 and 2 have not filed any version. The undertaking letter given by OP.2 dated 17.08.2005 states that OP.2 would regularly deduct the installments out of the salary of OP.1. But the evidence of complainant establishes that OP.2 did not deduct the installments as agreed. The violation of it amounts to deficiency in service. 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 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 07th day of January 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
