Md.Zafer Sidique,

S/o: Late Md.Sidique

At/PO/PS:Dhamnagar

Dist:Bhadrak

                       ………………………..Complainant

                (Vrs.)

1.         The Secretary,

            Balasore Bhadrak Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

            Dhamnagar Branch

            At/PO:Dhamnagar

            Dist:Bhadrak

2.         Branch Manager,

            Balasore Bhadrak Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Dhamanagar Branch, Bhadrak

                       …………………………..Opp.Parties

Order No.25 dt.27.04.2015:

            The Complainant has filed this case praying for a direction to O.P. to re-execute the deed and to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment along with litigation cost.

            The case of the Complainant is that he had obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/- by mortgaging land. In due course of time the Complainant paid Rs.1,15,000/- on 22.04.2013 under OTS against outstanding amount of Rs.1,65,000/-. The Complainant also obtained money receipt to that effect and the copy of ledger from 01.04.2008 to 30.06.2013 showing outstanding loan dues as zero balance. Therefore, the Complainant asked the O.P. to re-execute the deed in the name of Complainant but the O.P. remained silent. So the Complainant filed this case.

            The O.P.No.1 in their written version challenged the maintainability of the present complaint before this Forum. According to O.P.No.1 the Complainant is a loanee under B.B.C.C.Bank Ltd., Dhamnagar Branch and he had failed to repay the loan amount and interest. The Complainant expressed his inability to pay Rs.50,000/- and the same may be exempted. The B.M., Dhamnagar extended his co-operation and told him to adjust the amount of Rs.50,000/- in a condition that the competent authority be pleased to pass the same to which the Complainant agreed and statement was prepared making  the C.C. loan as zero balance. After zero balance the Branch Manager, Dhamnagar Branch placed the same before the competent authority and requested to the Audit Party to report. Though the Branch has been audited but B.M. has not received the Audit report. Unless the internal audit has not been finalized and exempted amount has not been accepted by the competent authority with due process, question of re-conveyance of deed does not arise.

            O.P.No.2 was added as a party in this case as per order dt.15.10.2014. Although O.P.No.2 appeared in this case, but failed to file any written version. So the case is taken up for hearing.

            During course of hearing the Ld.Counsel for O.P. strenuously contended that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of C.P.Act and Forum under the CPA has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaints in view of the provisions of Section 60 of the Societies Act. Further, the Branch Manager is not the competent authority to settle the amount under OTS. Section 3 of CPA provides as under:

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.-  The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

 Section 3 is worded in widest terms and leaves no one in doubt that the provisions of CPA shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.  Thus even if any other Act provides for any remedy  to a litigant  for redressal of that remedy a litigant can  go to District Forum if he is a  ‘consumer’ under CPA.   That remedy exists   in any other law which creates the right is no bar to District Forum assuming jurisdiction. We may also refer to a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. GO Go Garments - (1998) 3 SCC 247 where the Supreme Court said with reference to Section 3 of CPA that Contract Act would nevertheless apply to the complaints filed under CPA and that Section 3 could not mean to say that it overrides other provisions of law. Further, the Complainant as a member of the Society he has certain rights in the society like attending its meeting and right to vote.   A member is a separate entity from the Co-operative Society which is just like a shareholder as in the Company registered under the Companies Act, 1986. The Co-operative society   provides loan , invites deposits and pays interest and    refunds the amount with interest on maturity etc..   Society provides facilities in connection with financing and is certainly rendering services to its members and here is a member who avails of such services. In this connection, we rely on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition Nos. 823 to 826  of   2001(Smt. Kalawati & Ors. Vrs. M/s. United Vaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit

Society Ltd.) As such, the present complaint is maintainable under the C.P.Act and the Complainant is a “consumer” within the meaning of C.P.Act.

            Further, it is has been admitted by O.P.No.1 that the C.C.loan of the Complainant has been made zero balance under OTS but the Branch Manager, BBCC Bank Ltd., Dhamnagar is not the competent authority in this regard. Unless the audit report is received and exempted amount has not been accepted by the competent authority the question of re-conveyance deed does not arise. Here, we may say that when there is zero outstanding against the Complainant, he is certainly entitled to get back his mortgaged deed and we are least concern about whether the B.M. is competent or not to settle the amount under OTS. So withholding of documents after clearance of loan dues amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

            Accordingly, we direct the O.Ps. 1 & 2 to re-convey the mortgaged deed of the Complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. The Complainant at the same time is also directed to bear the cost of re-conveyance deed. Parties to bear their own cost. The case is disposed of accordingly.