DOF.5/6/2009 DOO.14/7/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 14th day of July 2010 CC.145/2009 C.Kanchana, Ayothumchal, P.O.Manathana, Peravoor (Rep. by Adv.K.K.Purushothaman Nambiar) Complainant Secretary, Vikalanga Sahakarana Sangam, C.1680, Nayattupara, P.O.Pattannur 670 595. (Rep. by Adv.k.Gopalakirshnan) Opposite parties O R D E R Smt. K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to give Rs.30, 000/- as compensation. The complainant contended that she is deaf and dumb and the member of the co. operative handicapped society having No.1239. The complaint had applied for a loan for house construction for an amount of Rs.20, 000/- by giving loan fee. Even though he above loan amount was sanctioned by the director board, the opposite party was not willing to pay the amount to the complainant, even though she had contacted the opposite party directly and through telephone several times. From 31.10.08 onwards the complainant had approached the opposite party for loan amount about 25 times along with her brother Sasi. But the opposite party is not ready to give the loan amount. So the complaint had suffered so much of mental as well as physical hardship and this was caused due to the deficiency of service of opposite party. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving notices from the Forum opposite party appeared and filed their version. According to opposite party the complainant is not a consumer, since the opposite party has not received any consideration for the service rendered. Moreover the complainant is a member of the society and hence any dispute between the member and the officer of the society has to be agitated before the co-operative Registrar as per section 69 of co. operative societies Act. More over the secretary of a society is only an officer executing the decisions taken by the Board of Directors. The opposite party admits that the complainant had submitted a loan application for an amount of Rs.20, 000/- for repairing her house. The loan will be given only to the members of the society and hence the complainant became member of the society on 30.10.08 by taking share. After that the complainant applied for loan on 25.11.08 and the board has sanctioned her loan application to give Rs.10, 000/-as loan on 30.1.09. The same was communicate to the complainant, but the complaint never turned up to receive the amount since her need is for Rs.20, 000/-. So the averment that the complainant has applied for a loan for self employment and she has paid loan fee and the opposite party has not permitted to withdraw the loan amount by saying one or other reason etc. are false. The complainant had visited the opposite party only twice that is for taking share and to apply loan. Since the complaint is frivolous and vexatious, the opposite party is entitled to Rs.10, 000/- as compensatory cost and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and Fora has jurisdiction to try the case? 2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW’s 1 and 2 and Exts. A1 & A2 and B1 to B5. Issue No. 1 The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer since she was not paid any amount for consideration for the service rendered. The opposite party again contended that the complainant is a member of the society and hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. But the complainant has produced Ext.A1 receipt having No.4120 for consideration for the loan application. More over in Secretary, Thirumugham co. operative Agricultural credit society Vs.M.Lalitha reported in2004 CTJ I(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme court held that the co-operative societies act has not ousted jurisdiction of consumer Forum and hence complaint filed before the Forum is maintainable. So in this case we hold the view that the complainant has paid consideration and hence the complaint is maintainable before this Forum and the fora has ample jurisdiction to try the case. Issue Nos. 2 to 4 The case of the complainant is that even though the Director Board of the society has sanctioned Rs.20, 000/- as loan, the Secretary was not ready to release the amount to the complainant. In order to prove this the complainant had produced Ext.A1 membership receipt and A2 receipt for loan application. The opposite party denied by saying that the Director Board had sanctioned only Rs.10, 000/- as loan and hence he was not in a position to release Rs.20, 000/- as loan amount. In order to prove his case he has produced Exts.B1 to B 5 i.e. loan application with notice, lawyer notice, verified copy of minutes of Director board meeting dt.30.1.09, reply notice and acknowledgement card. The opposite party admits that the complainant had applied for loan for Rs.20, 000/-. But the Director Board was sanctioned only Rs.10, 000/- as loan for the complainant as per the decision taken an on 30.1.09 by the Director board. The opposite party has produced Ext.B3 document i.e. the verified copy of the minutes dt. 30.1.09. On perusal of Ext.B3 it is seen that as per the item No.33 of 3rd decision Dt. 30.1.09 Rs.10, 000/- was sanctioned a loan. In Ext.B1 loan application also, it is seen that Rs.10, 000/- was sanctioned as loan. This decision was taken in the presence of PW2 who was also signed in the minutes. He admitted that “ Ext.B1 ImWn-¨Xv Fsâ H¸m-Wv. A\p-h-Zn¨ kT-J-y-bpT temWpT At]£ {]Im-cT 10000/þ BWv ImWp-I. So it is seen from the evidence that the opposite party had sanctioned Rs.10, 000/- as loan. But the opposite party contended that the complainant has not approached the opposite party to receive that amount. The PW1 deposed that “ 20000/-cq]-bn Ipdª tem¬-F-\n-¡m-h-i-y-an-Ã. So from these it is evident that the complainant was not ready to accept the allowed amount of Rs.10, 000/-. So we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1& A2.Receipts dt.31.10.08 issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Loan application submitted by complainant B2. Lawyer notice issued by complainant B3.Copy f the minutes dt.30.1.09 B4.Copy of the reply notice sent to complainant B5.Postal AD Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Sasi PW2.K.Subramanian Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
