KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.115/11
JUDGMENT DATED 18.7.2011
PRESENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
Managing Director,
Kuttikkad Farmers Co-operative -- APPELLANT
Bank Ltd No.572
P.O.Kuttikkad, Thrissur Dist.
(By Adv.Paulson.P.V)
Vs.
Simi,
D/0 Luvis, Mechery House, -- RESPONDENT
P.O, Chiyyaram, Thrissur District.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in CC.1019/07 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in reducing the rate of interest on the amount which was deposited by way of fixed deposit under a special scheme.
2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the rate of interest was reduced as per the circular issued by the registrar of co-operative societies and based on the proceedings of the Directors Board of the opposite party/bank. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC1019/07
3. Before the Forum below Exts.P1, P2 and R1 to R3 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the said complaint.
4. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 3rd February 2010 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party to return the amount covered by P2 fixed deposit receipt with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization and cost of Rs.1,000/-. Hence the present appeal.
5. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the Judgment dated 13th August 2009 passed by Hon.High Court of Kerala in W.P( C ) No.23646/07 (M) and argued for the position that the appellant/bank was bound by the circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative societies and that the action of the opposite party/bank in reducing the rate of interest is to be justified. Hence, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
6. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- in the year 1991 and the said deposit was for a period of 182 months with the maturity value of Rs.1,02,000/-. The aforesaid deposit matured on 28.2.07 but the opposite party was not prepared to pay the maturity value of Rs.1,02,000/-. The request of the complainant/depositor for the maturity value of the deposit was declined. Hence, the complaint in CC.1019/07.
7. The appellant/opposite party justified their action in reducing the rate of interest and thereby reducing the maturity value of the deposit on the ground that the Director Board of the opposite party/Bank took a decision based on the circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for reducing the rate of interest. The appellant/opposite party has also relied on R1 application for fixed deposit and the terms and conditions of the said deposit. But a perusal of the conditions incorporated in R1 would not empower the opposite party/Bank or its Director Board to reduce the rate of interest on the fixed deposits. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party much relied on clause 9 of R1 conditions of the deposit. But reading of the aforesaid condition No.9 of R1 would not give any indication empowering the opposite party/bank to reduce the rate of interest or to reduce the maturity value of the fixed deposit. It is to be noted that 10 clauses are incorporated in R1 terms and conditions of the deposit. But none of the aforesaid conditions would stipulate reduction of the rate of interest on the fixed deposit or reduction of the maturity value of the fixed deposits. But those conditions are with respect to the procedures to be followed on receiving the maturity value of the fixed deposits and also the procedures to be followed while availing loan on the fixed deposits. It would also empower the bank to grant loan on the fixed deposits and that the Director Board is given amble discretionary powers in granting loan. But, nowhere it is mentioned about the authority or right of the appellant/ opposite party bank or its Board of Directors to reduce the rate of interest on the fixed deposits or to reduce the maturity value of the fixed deposits. Thus, the Forum below is perfectly justified in directing the opposite party/bank to pay the amount covered by P2 fixed deposit receipt and to pay interest and costs.
8. The counsel for the appellant/opposite party much relied on Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act and argued for the position that the Forum below had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in CC.1019/07. We are unable to accept the aforesaid argument put forward by the counsel for the appellant. It is a well settled position that Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act would not bar the jurisdiction of the agencies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act in entertaining a dispute involved in the consumer dispute between a deposit holder and the financial institution. There can be no doubt about the fact that the appellant/opposite party bank accepted the fixed deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant/consumer agreeing to repay the maturity value of Rs.1,02,000/- on expiry of the deposit period of 182 months. Thus, the dispute between the complainant and the opposite party/bank can be considered as a consumer dispute coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. More over, Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act bars the jurisdiction of the court. It is held that the agencies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not courts and that the bar under 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act would not debar the Consumer Fora in entertaining the complaint with respect to the dispute or disputes between the depositor and the financial institution. Thus, in all respects it can very safely be concluded that the Forum below had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in CC.1019/07.
9. The counsel for the appellant/opposite party has also relied on copy of the Judgment dated 13th August 09 passed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala in W.P.( C ) No.23646/07 (M). It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant is not a party to the aforesaid writ petition. The facts of the said case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the present case on hand. So, it can very safely be held that the decision rendered by the Hon.Supreme Court in the aforesaid writ petition will not bind the respondent/complainant. So, there is no reasonable ground warranting interference at the hands of this State Commission.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below in CC.1019/07 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, there will be no order as to costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
