Date of Filing : 08.08.2011
Date of Order : 25.02.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 25th day of FEBRUARY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH …….. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 178 / 2011
BEML Employees Credit
Co-operative Society (Regd.),
Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet,
Kolar Gold Fields.
Represented by its Secretary ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. Sri. V. Dinesh Kumar,
Primary Health Centre,
Tekal, Malur Taluk.
2. The Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Tekal, Malur Taluk. …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. T. RAJASHEKARAIAH, PRESIDENT
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 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 OP1 who is working as a government servant, is an associate member of complainant society and that OP1 had borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 10.02.2007 agreeing to repay the loan and interest in 53 monthly installments of Rs.1,400/- each 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 OP1 has been working under OP2 who is Pay Disbursing Officer and that OP2 had undertaken to deduct the installments becoming due out of the salary payable to OP1 and to remit the same to complainant society and that OP2 failed to deduct the said installments as undertaken and to remit to complainant-society. It is alleged that OP1 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 OP1.
3. The notices issued were duly served on Ops 1 & 2 at the address shown in the cause title. OPs remained absent and did not file any version. 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 OPs 1 & 2 have not filed any version. The evidence of complainant establishes that OP2 did not deduct the installments as agreed. The violation of it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The present Pay Disbursing Officer i.e., OP2 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 25th day of February 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T.RAJASHEKHARAIAH
Member Member President
SSS
