National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Anjana Abraham vs Koothattukulam Farmers Services ... on 2 September, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4871 OF 2012 (From the order dated 23.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 756/2011 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, KERALA ) Ms. Anjana Abraham Chembethil, Mutholapura P.O Ernakulam District Represented by Power of Attorney Holder Abraham C Mathew Chembethil Mutholapura P.O. Ernakulam District Kerala Petitioner Versus The Managing Director The Koothattukulam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No. E-45, Koothattukulam 686 662 Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Sh. Vinod Joseph PJ, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Biju P.Raman, Advocate With Ms. Usha Nandini, V, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON _2nd SEPTEMBER, 2013 ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. The key question which falls for consideration is, Whether a Member can pick up a conflict with Co-operative Society, under the Consumer Protection Act?. The facts of this case are these. Ms.Anjana Abraham, the petitioner/complainant has filed this case through her Power of Attorney, Mr.Abraham C.Mathew, who is her father. On 29.05.1989, Mr. Abraham C. Mathew, deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- under Mangalya Deposit Scheme with the OP/respondent. As per the Scheme, the complainant was entitled to get back Rs.1,60,000/- on the date of maturity, i.e. 29.05.2009. When the complainant requested on 05.06.2009, to pay the said maturity amount, the respondent refused to pay the same. The OPs have admitted that the said deposit was made.
It is averred that the General Body of the Bank reduced the rate of interest. The petitioner/complainant invested the same and the OP was ready to pay the interest, as mentioned in the letter dated 30.06.2003.
2. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant. The State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the opposite party/respondent and dismissed the complaint.
3. We have heard the arguments.
As a matter of fact, the consumer fora have no jurisdiction to try the disputes arising between Co-operative Societies and its Members. Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, runs as follows:-
Chapter IX Settlement of Disputes
69. Disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the first time being in force, if a dispute arises :-
a) among members;
past member or person claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or
b) between a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of that society; or
c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society; or
d) between the society and any other society; or
e) between a society and the members of a society affiliated to it; or
f) between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person; or
g) between the society and a surety of a member, past member, deceased member or employee or a person, other than a member, who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; or
h) between the society and a creditor of the society; such dispute shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Sec.70A, in the case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes and the Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute and no other authority, shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute.
4. Similar view was taken in the case reported as P.P.Kapoor Vs. Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., I (1999) CPJ 81, wherein it was held in Para 7 of its judgment, as under :-
In our view, the dispute sought to be raised was a dispute arising out of the alleged non-compliance of provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder, under Section 60 of the said Act. Section 93(1)(c) of the said Act vests jurisdiction in respect of the disputes required to be referred to the Registrar under Section 60. Sub-rule 3 ousts jurisdiction of any Court, on any ground, whatsoever to question any order/decision or award made under the Act. In Dilip Bapat & Anr., Vs. Panchyati Co-operative Housing Society Limited, I (1993) CPJ 68 (NC), it was observed in Para-11 of the report that dispute of this nature is not a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act and the right Forum was to have ones remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act.
5. Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition, but grant opportunity to the petitioner/complainant to seek his/her grievance(s) before the appropriate forum, except the consumer fora, as per law.
....J (J.M. MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(DR.S.M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Dd/9