The complaint is in respect of Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated  by opposite parties  against the sureties of complainant.  The averments in the complaint  are as follows.

               The complainant is  the member of  the 1^st opposite party Co- operative Bank. He had availed a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-  (Rupees Three lakh only)  from opposite party in connection with the treatment of his father,  who was holding  high post  in the co- operative department.   But complainant could not  discharge  his liabilities   within the time limit  and thus  the 1^st   opposite party bank  initiated legal proceedings before Co-operative Assistant Registrar and obtained an award on  30-05-2017 against  complainant and his sureties  for Rs. 5,15,074/-(Rupees Five lakh fifteen thousand and seventy four only).  The  proceedings  before the Arbitrator  were against principles of natural justice  and he was  not ready  to  hear  the complainant  and his sureties and also to  consider  their records  and their statements.   Thus  without considering the grievance of the parties,  the Arbitrator   hurriedly    passed an  award and   against that award  the complainant had  filed revision petition before Co-operative Tribunal and a stay petition was also filed for staying the operation of the award  till the disposal of Revision petition.  In the award it is specified that the award can be executed as provided under Section 76 of Co-operative Societies Act.   But violating the direction the 1^st opposite party initiated proceedings  for recovery of the amount from the salary of the sureties of complainant. Those proceedings initiated only  to ridicule  those sureties  and to take vengeance  against them.  The award  does  not  confer  any  right   on 1^st  opposite party to initiate recovery proceedings against the sureties. Though complainant  lodged  complaints before the Joint  Registrar &  Assistant  Registrar   of Co-operative Department, no action was taken  by them  .  Thus   an order may be passed  directing the 1^st opposite party to withdraw the notices  sent  for recovery of  amount from the salary of  sureties of complainant and  also to pay Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakh only) as compensation for mental agony caused  to complainant together with 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) as cost of proceedings.

               Opposite party No.1  filed version stating as follows.  Since complainant does not come under the category of consumer,  he is not entitled to any relief . The arbitration court has all powers for  dealing with  all disputes relating to co-operative bank as per  section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act .The bank is entitled to resort to  different modes  for recovering the dues, the salary of  the sureties of complainant  also can be attached  as per section 76 of  Co-operative Societies Act. Thus complaint is to be dismissed.

              Opposite party No.2 filed separate version stating that ,the complainant and two sureties availed a loan or Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees Three lakh only) from 1^st opposite party bank on 12-12-2012 and when they became overdue  the 1^st opposite party  filed Arbitration case to recover the amount. Then the Arbitration case was disposed of  on 30-05-2017 . The award passed in that case  gives an exclusive right to 1^st opposite party to proceed with the execution under section 76 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.  As per section 76 of the Act a society can claim on requisition in writing  to the disbursing officer  to deduct an amount already decided  on the basis of an agreement by the employ with the society  and pay the amount so deducted to the society.   The only condition for invoking that section is that 30 days notice is to be given  to the employees.   Thus the action taken by 1^st opposite party is legally valid and complaint is to be dismissed. 

            Opposite party No.3 filed separate version describing the proceedings of the Arbitration case filed.  It is stated therein that to ascertain the correctness of the allegation raised in the complaint, he had been directed to appear in the office of Co-operative Assistant Registrar in Manjeri on 30-01-2018  for hearing  and  complainant did not  appear as directed  and thus  enquiry was closed .

         Complainant and opposite party filed affidavits and Ext. A1 to A7 were marked.  The points arise for consideration.

1. Whether  the complainant is entitled to any relief in this case.
2. Reliefs and cost.

Point No.1

         Admittedly arbitration proceedings  had been initiated against complainant and  the sureties of complainant and  an award was passed infavour of 1^st opposite party allowing him to  recover dues from the complainant and his sureties as provided under Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The main contention of the complainant is that  the proceedings initiated by the 1^st opposite party  is against  the spirit of the award passed .  It is asserted by the complainant that  the award should be executed  as provided under section  76 of the Act. An award, as per section 76  of the Act, can be executed on a certificate signed by the Registrar or any person  authorized by him  in this behalf and it can be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be executed  in the same manner  as a decree of such court.   It is also provided that  if   the order is for recovery of money that can be executed  as if  the recovery of the arrears of public revenue due on land  .It is also   made  clear  that   it can  be  executed   by  the  attachment  of  the  sale  of any property of the person  against whom order is passed.   Now the 1^st  opposite party  who is authorized to execute the award initiated  proceedings for attachment of the salary . Thus we find no  irregularity or illegality  in the proceedings initiated by 1^st opposite party    for recovering the dues. More over  complainant has no locus standi to  get a direction  against the recovery proceedings by filing a complaint under Consumer Protection Act.   Therefore we find that complainant  is not entitled to any relief in this case. Point is decided accordingly.

Point No.2

       On the basis  of the findings on the  above points , we dismiss the complaint.

 Dated  this 31^st   day  of December ,  2018

            A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                              MINI MATHEW, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                      : Nil

Documents marked on the side of  the complainant                   : Ext. A1 to A7

Ext.A1       :  Arbitrator Award dated 30/5/2017.

Ext.A2        : Copy of the notice dated 11/01/2018.

Ext A3       :  Copy of the notice dated 11/01/2018.

Ext.A4       :  Complaint copy dated 01/01/2018.

Ext.A5        : Petition copy dated 18/01/2018.

Ext.A6        : Photocopy of Notice (Notice No.CCE.156) dated 28/06/2018.

Ext. A7      :  Photocopy of Complaint dated 21/07/2018.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party      :  Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party    :   Nil

                                                A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                              MINI MATHEW, MEMBER