KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.59/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED: 10.07.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.05/2015 of CDRF, Kollam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. K. Dinesh Sajan)

Vs

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. K. Sudarsana Kumar)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The first opposite party in C.C.No.05/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (will be referred as District Commission) is the appellant.

          2.       On 30.11.2015 the District Commission had allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to provide the entire benefits of the Kerala Co-operative Risk Fund Scheme 2008 to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation and Rs.1,500/-(Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) as costs.

3.       The allegations contained in the complaint is that the complainant and his wife had on 05.01.2010 availed a loan for Rupees One Lakh each from the first opposite party.  Duration of the loan was five years. On 05.05.2010 the wife of the complainant who was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam due to renal problems, died on 02.06.2013. Kerala Cooperative Risk Fund Scheme 2008 stipulates that in case of the death of the loanee during the loan period the legal heirs of the deceased loanee are entitled to get the benefits under the scheme. The complainant, after the demise of his wife had claimed the benefits under the scheme but the first opposite party did not sanction the amount and the complainant approached the District Commission.

          4.       The first Opposite party filed version by challenging the maintainability of the complaint as the complainant is not a person coming under the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act since the complainant never purchased any goods or hired or availed any service for consideration.   The first opposite party would concede that the complainant’s wife had availed a loan on 02.06.2013 and she had remitted Rs.23,575/-(Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five) towards interest and Rs.959/-(Rupees Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine) towards principal up to 14.07.2011.  Thereafter no remittance was made and the loan became overdue on 05.01.2015. Kerala Co-operative Risk Fund Scheme was introduced on 01.04.2008.  Initially the scheme was not mandatory.   The first opposite party had joined in the scheme on 01.02.2010 and started to collect premium of the Risk Fund Scheme from the loanees.  When the complainant and his wife availed the loans no premium under the Risk Fund Scheme was collected.  As per Rule 4(b) of the Risk Fund Scheme, the loanees who fail to remit the loan amount for a continuous period of 6 months prior to death are not entitled to get the benefit. The wife of the complainant died on 02.06.2013 and the remittance towards the principal was Rs.959/-(Rupees Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine only).  The opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

5.       The evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P8 for the complainant. On the side of the opposite party DW1 was examined and D1 to D3 were also marked.

6.       The District Commission had overruled the objection raised by the opposite party and entered into a finding that non joining of the bank in the scheme already declared by the government with a view to extend the benefit to the poor people amounts to deficiency of service and therefore compensation for Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and costs Rs.1,500/-(Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) was awarded.

7.       The appellant assailed the order of the District Commission on the following grounds:-

8.       The District Commission went wrong in properly appreciating the evidence and the question of law. The District Commission had taken a biased approach. Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act stipulates that all disputes arising between the members and the society shall be referred to the Cooperative Arbitration Court.   This aspect was not properly appreciated.

9.       Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent. We have carefully examined the records received from the District Commission.

10.     Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act contemplates that the Act is in derogation of any act for the time being in force.  Kerala Co-operative Society Act was prevailing at the time of introduction of the Consumer Protection Act.  So it can be seen that the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy available to the aggrieved person and hence the technical objection raised by the appellant on the basis of Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act is found untenable.  The District Commission had correctly reached the conclusion that the District Commission has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

11.     The next objection raised by the appellant is that the wife of the complainant was a defaulter for a period of more than six months prior to the date of her death and hence she is not entitled to get the benefit under the scheme. The birth certificate of the wife of the complainant is marked as Exhibit P2 which proves her date of death as 02.06.2013.   The appellant had caused production of the concerned ledger extract in respect to the wife of the complaint which is marked as Exhibit D3.  D3 shows that no remittances were made by the deceased loanee for a period of more than six months. This objection assumes less significance on the reason that the scope of adjudication is as to whether the first opposite party had committed deficiency of service in not implementing the welfare scheme introduced by the Government. There is no justification for not implementing the scheme by depriving the loanee to avail the concession.

12.     Exhibit B1 is the by law per training to the risk fund. the scheme was introduced by the government.  Our Honourable High Court in a ruling reported in a Ruling in Writ Petition No.13274/2015 dated 24.11.2017 in “Attingal Municipal Town Service Co-operative Bank Limited Vs Kerala Cooperative Ombudsman and others” had considered this aspect and declared that the bank has a duty to enrol the loanee in the Risk Fund Scheme introduced as per the stipulations contained in the government order. The Honourable High Court had upheld the order passed by the Ombudsman in writing off the debt of an identical loanee.

In view of the authoritative judicial pronouncement of the High Court we have no hesitation to reach a conclusion that the act of the first opposite party in not joining in the Risk Fund Scheme amounts to deficiency of service. The District Commission had properly appreciated the evidence and reached at a correct conclusion. Thus, the appeal fails.

In the result the appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.

SL