FINAL ORDER

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                        The 1^st opposite party in this case filed this maintainability petition against the complainant in this case. 

         2. The case of the petitioner (1^st opposite party) is as follows:  According to the petitioner this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The petitioner contended that the complainant in this case is not at all a consumer as per the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act and is a defaulter of the petitioner bank and not entitled to claim any relief under C.P. Act.  The respondent (complainant) pledged gold ornament with 1^st opposite party on 10.03.2014 for a period of 6 months.  After the expiry of the time of the loan sufficient notices were issued to the respondent on 18.03.2014 and 29.12.2014.  Even though, the respondent received all the notices the respondent not respond to the notice hence auction proceedings are also initiated against the respondent on 27.02.2015.  According to the petitioner, on 18.03.2015 after complying all legal proceedings the gold ornament were auction for Rs.4,31,550/-.  Even after the auction, there is a balance amount of Rs.59,708/- was still stand as a balance to the respondent.  The petitioner again contended that it is an admitted fact that the dispute is with regard to a loan issued by a Co-operative institution.  The petitioner’s bank is functioning as per the provisions of Kerala Co-operative Act and Rules.  In view of Sec.69(1)g a dispute with regard to a loan to be referred to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or an Arbitration Court.  In view of the said section, there is an express bar to entertain a complaint with regard to a loan, it was issued by a Co-operative Society.

                   3. The respondent (complainant) filed an objection to this petition as follows:  According to the respondent (complainant) the petition filed by the petitioner (1^st O.P) is not maintainable as per law, facts and circumstances of the dispute.  It is stated that the respondent is a consumer of 1^st opposite party and availed banking service from 1^st opposite party by payment of service charge hence he is a consumer as per the Provisions of C.P. Act 1986.  The 1^st opposite party is functioning under the control of Reserve Bank of India Act.  It is further stated that the respondent availed an agricultural gold loan from petitioner’s bank and the bank is under the control and guidance of Reserve Bank of India.  He further stated that on 27.02.2015, the date of auction of gold, the market price of gold per gram was Rs.2,334.53.  As per the version of the Branch Manager the gold was auctioned for Rs.1,800/- only.  This statement is sufficient to see the deficiency in service on the part of petitioner’s bank.  He categorically contended that the banking transaction of the petitioner’s bank is under the Provisions of Rules and Regulations of Reserve Bank of India and Sec.69(1)g of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is not applicable in the case with regard to the service given by the petitioner’s bank to the respondent.  Therefore, the respondent prayed to dismiss this petition with their cost.  We heard the above contentions in the presence of counsels who are appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. 

                   4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner’s bank argued that all the functions of Dist. Co-operative Banks of Kerala is governed by Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.  As per Sec.1(a), “District Co-operative Bank” is defined as follows:- “District Co-operative Bank” means a Central Society the principal object of which is to raise funds to be lent to its members, with jurisdiction over one revenue district and having as its members any type of primary societies and Federal and Central Societies having headquarters in such District”.  In the light of this definition it is clear that the object of District Co-operative Bank is to raise funds to its members.  Ordinarily, the members of the District Co-operative Banks are different types of primary credit societies, Non-credit Societies, Federal and the Central Societies having head quarters in such districts.  It is an admitted case that the respondent availed an Agricultural gold loan from a District Co-operative Bank, which is governed and controlled by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969.  It is argued that as per Sec.69(g) the disputes arised between the society and 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 can be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar.  The Provisions of Sec.69(g) is also stated here, “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”.

                   5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) argued that the District Co-operative Banks are functioning under the control of the Reserve Bank of India and they are a license holder as per Reserve Bank of India Act.  The respondent herein is a consumer as per the Provisions of C.P. Act and the petitioner’s bank committed clear deficiency in service in their auction proceedings.

                   6. When we are considering issue of maintainability we have to look into the legal bar stated in Sec.69(1)g, it is pertinent to see that the dispute in this case is between loanee and the bank.  As per the Provisions of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the District Banks are controlled by the relevant provisions of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.  It is true that all the dispute arised in primary agricultural credit bank (society) is referred to arbitration as per Provision 69 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.  The same procedure is going on with regard to the dispute arised between the loanees and the district bank.  It is true that the banking business of the District Co-operative Banks are governed and controlled by Reserve Bank of India by issuing a licence to District Co-operative bank as per Sec.22(1) and Sec.56 of Banking Regulation Act 1949.  Anyway, even though the Dist. Co-operative Banks are controlled by Reserve Bank of India the administrative control and other policy matters are decided or controlled by Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.  Even if the respondent suffered deficiency in service from the petitioner’s bank he can very well approach before the arbitrator of the Dist. Co-operative Bank to redress his grievances or even approach before Ombudsman for Co-operative Societies.  It is argued that if an efficuas and alternative remedy is available to a party he has no right to approach any other Forum for the redressal of that grievances.  As far as this case is concerned that point of argument is also sustained.  As per the decision reported in Revision Petition No.4871/12 of our Hon’ble NCDRC it is ordered that the dispute of this nature is not a consumer dispute under C.P. Act and the right Forum was to have once remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act.  In the light of this decision, in order to redress the genuine grievances of the respondent the only Forum the respondent can approach is – the arbitrator of co-operative societies.  When we look into Sec.69(g) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act it reveals that even if a loanee is not a member of a society and a dispute arised between a non member and a society (other than a member) that dispute also has to be referred to the arbitrator or registrar of the societies.  Considering all the above finding, we would like to arrive a conclusion to the effect that maintainability petition filed by the petitioner’s bank is allowable and also found that the complainant in this case has no right to file this case before this Forum.

                   7. In the result, we pass the following orders:

                       The I.A is allowed and the case is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of March, 2016.

                                                                                   (Sd/-)

                                                                             P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                        (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – 1)        :   (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)           :   (Sd/-)

Appendix – Nil.

                                                                                             (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Sudevan. P.S, Pushpamangalam Veedu, Imaly, Omalloor. P.O.,

                    Pathanamthitta.                                                          

               (2) The Manager, Pathanamthitta Co-Op: Bank, Elavumthitta.

3. The General Manager, Pathanamthitta Dist. Co-op: Bank,

                    Head Office, Pathanamthitta.

4. The Stock File.