KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTTHACAD, THJIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL NO.58/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 16.5.08 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Devasia Chacko : APPELLANT Manamel House Cheeranchira.P.O., Changanachery, Kottayam Dist. (By Adv.Thomas James) Vs 1. Muttar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 4048 : RESPONDENTS represented by Secretary Muttar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 4048 Muttar.P.O., Aleppey District. 2. President, Muttar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.4048 Muttar.P.O., Aleppey District. The appellant as the complainant whose complaint that at the time paddy requirements a sum of Rs.6759/- was deducted towards the Paddy Procurement Fund Account and also Rs.1186/- as cost of gunny bags. 2. The opposite parties had contested the matter that the proceedings are not maintainable as the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act contains prohibition of entertaining a matter by any other authority. It is asserted that it is as per written consent that the amount has been deducted towards the Paddy Procurement Fund Account ie at the rate of Rs.100/- per quintal. The amount towards gunny bag of the cost was incurred by opposite parties and only Rs.50/- is granted as handling charges from the agricultural department. 3. The evidence adduced consisted proof affidavit of the complainant and the testimony of RW1 the respective parties Exts. A1 to A5 and B1 to B8. 4. The Forum dismissed complaint as it was found that vide Ext.B2 consent letter the complainant agreed to pay contribution to Paddy Procurement Fund and further the complainant has admitted his signature in Ext.B2. Hence we find that there is no illegality in the order of the Forum with respect to the deduction towards contribution to the Paddy Procurement Fund. So for as deduction towards purchase of gunny bags, it appears that the same has not been agitated before the Forum. In the appeal also there is no specific ground with respect to the above point. In the circumstance we find that there is no scope to admit the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
