CC/98/2023
ORDER No.09
DTD. 02.05.2024
The case record is taken up for passing order.
The contention of the OP is that the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2(7) of C.P Act and as such the case is not maintainable against the OP. The complainant is a member/stake holder of Krishnagar City Co-operative bank. The complainant admitted it in para 9 of the complainant and in the loan agreement with the said bank. The complainant took loan of Rs.10,00,000/- at an interest of 14.5% p.a. But he concealed that fact. The complainant claimed dividend from the OP bank. The complainant during taking the loan submitted an affidavit to the OP wherein he voluntarily agreed that in case non-payment of outstanding loan, the cooperative bank is authorized to recover the outstanding from his retirement benefit schemes that is Gratuity, Death Gratuity etc. and the bank has right to attach the said amount in those schemes . There is expressed bar to try the case where subject matter involves disputes with members of cooperative as per section 102 of the Co-operative Society Acts, 2006. After passing of the arbitration Award, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present case before this Commission. So, the OP prayed for dismissal of the instant case with cost.
The complainant filed written objection denying the allegation. The complainant stated that the petition is not maintainable and that the complainant is a consumer under the C.P Act. The complainant claimed that the petition should be rejected.
Perused the petition and the written objection as well as the pleadings of the both the parties and the documents. Considered.
It is fact that the complainant took a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on 10.12.2015 from the City Co-operative Bank Limited at an interest 14.5 % p.a . The complainant claimed that after few months he found EMI has been increased. The employer forced the complainant to pay increased amount regularly. The complainant verbally requested to the OP bank to reduce the EMI. The OP bank also issued notice to the employer of the complainant school authority for deduction and remittance of loan from the salary of the complainant. The OP bank intentionally increased the EMI and did not surrender the LIC Certificate.
The OP categorically alleged that the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2(7) of C.P Act. The complainant suppressed the fact that there was a loan agreement which contents inter-alia that if there is any change of rate of interest he will abide by the said agreement. The OP filed certain documents wherefrom it is revealed that the complainant sworn an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate that in the event of failure to repay the loan he will be liable to pay it in monthly installment as per demand of the bank.
It is the admitted fact that the complainant took a loan from the OP bank.
The OP also filed copy of award before the arbitrator and Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society vide case no.28 of 2021-2022. As per order no.5422 of the said proceedings of arbitration an award was passed wherein the complainant Amit Dyuti Das was directed to pay Rs.8,43,696/- as award money.
The OP also filed an order of the Finance Department Audit branch of Government of West Bengal passed by Special Secretary finance department vide order no.717-F dated 20.01.2005 wherein the employer was directed to deduct money.
Ld. Advocate for the OP referred to section 102 of West Bengal Co-operative Society’s Act, 2006 wherein it is provided that all disputes between members and cooperative society regarding management or business or affairs of cooperative society should be filed before the Registrar of Co-operative Society’s Act.
Ld. Defense Counsel also argued that the complainant is esstopped from denying the arbitration award passed against him.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that the OP has not mentioned about the rule of estoppels in the main petition. The argument is not acceptable in as much as question of law need not be mentioned in the petition. Rule of estoppels is applicable to both the parties to the case. It appears that there is already an award of arbitrator in regard to the dispute between the parties.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that in case of service point there is no bar to entertain this case because in that case he is a consumer.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant referred to a decision reported in RBT No.F/05 of 1995 passed by SCDRC, Maharastra Circuit Bench wherein it was held that Bank must take all pre-caution to check forgery – complainant is entitled to get the relief. But Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The said case law does not apply because in that case the party was a consumer. In the instant case the complainant could not deny that he is a member of the cooperative society.
The OP categorically stated in para 9 of the petition by affidavit that the complainant is a member/ stake holder of the OP Cooperative Society. In the written objection the complainant could not deny the said fact. Therefore, the said case law has no application.
The OP also filed the certified copy of the award wherefrom it is revealed that the final award has been passed by the arbitrator and Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society’s Nadia Range. There is nothing to show that any appeal is preferred against the said award. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 102 of the WB Co-operative Society Act, 2006 section 102 this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion and observation made hereinabove the Commission comes to the finding that the petition is legal and valid.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the petition of the OP dated 21.11.2023 regarding maintainability of the case is considered and allowed. It is further ordered that the present case no.98/2023 is not maintainable in law, barred by section 102 of W.B Co-operative Service Act, 2006 and as such it is dismissed as not maintainable.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
