Heard learned counsel for parties, on admission. Though there being delay of 2 (two) days in filing revision petition beyond prescribed period of limitation, no application for condonation of delay seeking indulgence of Commission to condone delay was filed by petitioner and for this laxity on part of petitioners, revision petition merits dismissal. Even on merit, petitioners do not have a good cause for redressal of their grievance in revision. Factual backgrounds are that allured by a Double Money Fixed Deposit Scheme launched by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos. 5 to 21, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 invested Rs. 2,25,000/- through 45 Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 5,000/- each for 60 (sixty) months during period of 17.10.2002 to 03.04.2003 with different branches of Institution. However, after maturity of FDRs, while Rs. 5,000/- was paid to depositors, rest Rs. 5,000/- was credited into Savings Bank A/c, instead of making payment ‘in cash’. Since despite long waiting, total maturity value was not paid, a consumer complaint came to be filed with District Forum. During the proceeding, while opposite party Nos. 1 to 6, and 8 to 19 failed to submit written statements, only opposite party No. 7 contested proceeding, filing written statement. Resultantly, complaint was resisted only by respondent No. 7, raising various contentions about this being not a consumer dispute for adjudication by consumer fora, particularly, in view of provisions of Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which bars jurisdiction of other forums. District Forum, however, having over-ruled contentions raised, directed petitioners along-with other opposite parties to pay maturity value of deposits, jointly and severally, along-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity, till realization. Petitioners were also directed to refund Rs. 5,090/- lying with Savings Bank A/c along-with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 18.12.2007. Compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 1,500/- towards cost of litigation was also awarded. State Commission too, in appeal, upheld award of District Forum. Hence, this revision. Findings of fora below are sought to be assailed by learned counsel for petitioner on premises that since proceedings before National Commission comes within the term “suit”, a complaint without issuance of notice was not maintainable and also that since petitioners were only Directors and Managers of Institution – Bank and deposits were not made with them in their personal capacity, no liability can be fastened against them alone, without making Institution also liable. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners seeks to disown their liability to make payment of maturity value of deposits taking recourse to relief claimed by complainant in complaint, only against the Institution. However, we are not impressed with the contentions raised. Though reliance was put on a decision of Hon’ble Apex court in case of Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Birla Yamaha – 2000 (4) SCC 91, to support contentions raised, that proceeding before National Commission comes within the term “suit”, complete citation was not made available to know the factual backgrounds of case referred to, by learned counsel. That apart, District Fora are not civil courts though it may have the trappings of a civil court. Neither it is Revenue court. Now, it is well crystallized by catena of decisions that in summary proceedings which consumer fora follow, technicalities of civil proceedings need not be pursued. That apart, provisions of section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is worded in widest terms, leaves no room for doubt that provisions of section 3 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 grievance, an aggrieved has liberty to go to District Forum, if he is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Remedy which exists in other law and creates some right is no bar to District Forum, assuming jurisdiction. We need not refer to various citations on this issue except referring to decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through Legal Heirs & Ors., (2004) I SCC 305. As for other contentions raised, complainants in last part of relief sought, made following prayer in the complaint :- “An order be passed directing the opponent to return immediately to the Account Holder along-with interest as per the terms and conditions”. Relief sought by complainant in complaint cannot be read in isolation and has to be read together and, if this be accepted, fora below were perfectly right, directing petitioners who were non-else but Directors and Managers of Institution, for payment of maturity value of deposits. Rightly it was urged on behalf of respondents that said Patsanstha, the Institution is registered under Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and not registered as a Bank, under Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Finding of fora below holding opposite party Nos. 1 to 19 (including petitioners) to pay maturity value of deposits, along-with deposits in Savings Bank A/c, jointly and severally, can not be faulted with, when petitioners are shown to be Directors of Institution. That apart, Section 73 of Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 can also be taken notice of for determining liabilities of the Members of the Society/Committee : “The management of every Society shall vest in a Committee constituted in accordance with this Act, the Rules and bye-laws which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed respectively by this Act, the Rules and the bye-laws 1 (AB) – Members of the Committee shall be jointly and severally responsible for all the decisions taken by the Committee during the term relating to the business of Society. The Members of the Committee shall be jointly and severally responsible for all the acts and omissions detrimental to the interest of the Society”. We may usefully refer to a decision of National Commission in the matter of Ashish Ramesh Chandra Birla & Ors. Vs. Muralidhar Rajdhar Patil & Ors. – I (2009) CPJ 200 (NC) in which case too, maturity value of deposits having not been paid by Society, its directors were held jointly and severally liable to honour claim of depositors. No other material issue was agitated, for our consideration. Revision petition, in the circumstances, being bereft of merit is dismissed but without order as to cost.