DATE OF FILING : 14.12.2009.

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of April, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.236/2009

Between

Complainant : Cyriac, S/o Zhacharia,

Kallidukkil House,

Kalayanthani P.O.,

Alakkode, Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Party : The Secretary,

Alakkode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

No.1588,

Alakkode,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: T.J. Augustine)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRESIDENT)
 

The complainant is a member of the opposite party bank as Membership No.1747. The opposite party bank conducted the 74^th General Body meeting of the society on 9.8.2009 without giving proper notice to the members. The complainant filed a memorandum for postponding the meeting. But the opposite party denied to read the memorandum before the general body meeting. No reply was given to the questions raised by the complainant to the opposite party. So the complainant applied for getting the copy of the minutes of the general body meeting conducted by the opposite party as per rule 32, section 103 of the Co-operative Societies Act, on 17.8.2009. But the document were not received by the complainant even after 3 months. The opposite party ought to have gave documents after 15 days of receipt of the application. So a notice was given on 24.11.2009, but the opposite party never replied the same. In the writ petition filed by the opposite party before the Hon'ble High Court, it is stated that the members will get the copies of the documents from the opposite party bank as per the Co-operative Societies Act within a short period than the time needed for getting copy of documents as per Right to Information Act. So the petition is filed for getting compensation against the opposite party for the loss caused by the complainant because of the lack of copy of the minutes of the 74^th General Body meeting. The opposite party bank is a public establishment, so the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the persons who violated the law. So the petition is filed for getting copy of the minutes and also for compensation.
 

2. The opposite party filed written version stating that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no consumer relation between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant has not availed any service or bought any goods for consideration from the opposite party. The complainant is a member and shareholder of the opposite party bank. The dispute alleged by the complainant is a dispute between a member and the society and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such dispute. The complainant is not claiming any relief directly from the opposite party but from some of the employees of the opposite party and the names of whom are not even stated in the complaint. Hence the complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. Apart from these facts the reliefs claimed in the complaint are liable to be raised in appropriated authorities empowered to deal with such disputes involving co-operative societies as provided in the Co-operative Societies Act. The only intention of the complainant is to harass the opposite party. For several months he was regularly creating problem to the smooth functioning of the bank. The opposite party never denied any bonafide request of the complainant. In fact the complainant has been making unnecessary nuisances to the opposite party for the last several months. He was constantly making nuisances prior to the general body also with intention to obstruct the conducting of general body. The complainant has no case that he has paid any consideration or money to the opposite party and sought any lawful service from the opposite party. He has only alleged that the opposite party acted in violation of section 103 and rule 32 of the Co-operative Societies Act. For entertaining such disputes, proper authorities are constituted under this act. The complainant has filed this without any cause of action and may be dismissed.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.P1 to P9 marked on the side of the complainant.

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting the copy of the documents from the opposite party Co-operative bank. The complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the application filed by the complainant to the opposite party as per rule 32 section 103 of the Co-operative Societies Act, in order to get the copy of the minutes book of the General Body meeting on 9.8.2009. Ext.P2 is the notice and its postal receipt issued by the complainant to the opposite party for getting the copy of the documents. Ext.P3 is the postal acknowledgement card for the same. The complainant filed a petition before the hon'ble Minister of the Co-operative department. The copy of the same is marked as Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the reply given by the opposite party bank to the complainant for the application under Right to Information Act. Ext.P6 is the communication letter from the Joint Registrar (General), Idukki, addressed to the Private Secretary of the Hon'ble Minister. Ext.P8 is the copy of the memorandum filed by the complainant submitting before the General Body of the opposite party bank. Ext.P9 is the copy of the final report filed by Thodupuzha Police before the CJM court. Ext.P7 is the copy of the writ petition filed by the opposite party before hon'ble High Court.
 

The complainant filed a memorandum for submitting before the 74^th General Body of the opposite party bank. It was denied by the opposite party bank for submission. So PW1 filed an application before the opposite party bank as per the Right to Information Act for getting copy of the minutes. But it was denied by the opposite party as per Ext.P5 reply stating that the Co-operative bank will not come under the provisions of Right to Information Act, as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court. So the complainant filed another petition which is Ext.P1 as per section 103 and rule 32 of the Co-operative Societies Act for getting the copy of the minutes book of the 74^th General Body conducted by the bank on 9.8.2009. But it was not supplied by the opposite party, so he sent a notice to the opposite party for getting compensation, which is Ext.P2. But it is not replied by the opposite party. So a complaint is filed to the hon'ble Minister of the co-operative societies. PW2 is the Junior Inspector of the Co-operative Societies. Ext.P6 is the report filed to the hon'ble Minister by Joint Registrar. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel of the opposite party, PW1 deposed that no fees has been remitted for Ext.P1 application, but the complainant is ready to pay the fee. All the members of the bank are entitled to get the copies of the minutes. The matter is not concerned with the day to day working and service of the bank. But it is the right of the members of the bank as per the rule 32, section 103 of the Co-operative Societies Act. So the complainant filed Ext.P1 application as per rule 32 and section 103 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The opposite party challenged that these matters are to be considered in the appropriate authority of the Co-operative Societies and it is not a consumer dispute. The complainant never paid any fee for the application, no service has availed by the complainant or bought any goods for consideration from the opposite party.

The copy of the minutes of the General Body is not a matter concerned to the day to day service of the bank. So if a document is not given as per the Co-operative Societies Act, the complainant can approach the appropriate authority as per the Act. The complainant never purchased any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. No goods purchased for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant never avails any service for consideration which

has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised. No loss is caused to the complainant due to the act of the opposite party. So we think that the matter concerned is not a consumer dispute and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as per the Consumer Protection Act.

Hence the petition dismissed.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th April, 2010.

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)
 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Cyriac.

PW2 - Anas K.H.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of the application given by the complainant to the opposite party dated, 17.8.2009.

Ext.P2 - Copy of the notice given by the complainant to the opposite party dated, 24.11.2009, and its postal receipt.

Ext.P3 - The acknowledgement card for Ext.P2 notice.

Ext.P4 - Copy of the petition filed by the complainant before the Hon'ble Minister of Co-operative Department, dated 18.8.2009.

Ext.P5 - Copy of the letter given by the opposite party to the complainant No.63/09-10 dated 9.9.2009.

Ext.P6 - True copy of report filed to the Hon'ble Minister of Co-operative department by the Joint Registrar (General), Idukki, No.C.R.P.5440/09, dated 23.10.2009.

Ext.P7 - Copy of the writ petition filed by the opposite party before the Hon'ble High Court.

Ext.P8 - Copy of the resolution filed by the complainant submitting before the General Body of the opposite party bank.

Ext.P9 - Copy of the final report filed by the Thodupuzha Police before the CJM Court,Thodupuzha.

On the side of Opposite Party :
 

Nil