CC Filed on 09.03.2011
Disposed on 22.06.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 22nd day of June 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 60/2011
Between:
BEML Employees Credit Co-operative Society (Regd.), Maharaja Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its: Secretary. | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. Sri. V. Shankar, Govt. Higher Primary School, Hangala, Bethamangala. 2. The Head Master, Govt. Higher Primary School, Hangala, Bethamangala. 3. The Block Educational Officer, B.E.O Office, Bangarpet. | ….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 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 04.06.2004 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.3 is present Pay Disbursing Officer as per the departmental instructions. It is made out that OP.2 or OP.3 did not effect 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.1 and OP.3 were served on them but they remained absent. The notice issued to OP.2 returned unserved with endorsement that the office of OP.2 was door locked. Considering the fact that OP.1 and OP.3 was served with notices, the service of notice on OP.2 was taken as sufficient. The OPs remained absent and they did not file any version. The complainant filed his 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 to 3 have not filed any version. OP.2 has not denied the issuing of undertaking letter for deducting the monthly installments out of the salary of OP.1. The undertaking letter given by OP.2 dated 19.04.2004 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 or OP.3 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.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 22nd day of June 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
