IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 18th day of December, 2020
Filed on 05. 06. 2018
Present
1. Sri. Santhoshkumar Bsc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.BA. LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.146/2018
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Karthikeyan.G 1. General Manager.
Kiran Karthika Alappuzha Dist. Co opretavie
Pattanakkadu, Cherthala Bank Ltd, Head Office
(Adv. Hameed Hassan) Alappuzha
(Adv.C.Parameswaran)
2. Co – Operative Society Joint
Registrar(General)
Alappuzha.
(Adv.C.Parameswaran )
3. Manager
District Co operative Bank ltd
Pattanakkadu Branch
Ponnamveli, Pattanakkadu.P.O
Cherthala.
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
- On 12/7/2015 the complainant has availed an agriculture loan for Rs.1,53,000/-(Rupees One lakh fifty three thousand only) from the 3rd opposite party by pledging his gold ornaments and they levied Rs.1,770/- as service charge. Thereafter complainant renewed his loan on 2/12/ 2015, 3/6/2016 and 29/11/2016. In all these occasions 3rd opposite party has been levied excess service charge as Rs.1,783/- than minimum service charge of Rs.300/-. Against which he has given complaint to Chief Minister of Kerala and Minister of Co-operative society. He also made a complaint before the 1st opposite party General Manager about this illegal act and demanded to return said unlawful levied amount from opposite parties.
Thereafter it is learnt that in accordance of the complainant’s petition to Chief Minister and Concerned Minister, an enquiry has been conducted by Registrar of Co operative Society and it is found that the contention of the complaint is correct and issued direction to 3rd opposite party. After the said order opposite party levied only the reasonable service charge of Rs.3,00/- from the complainant but did not return the excess amount levied from him. Thereafter he approached the Joint registrar with a request to take necessary action to return the said amount but his attempt was in vein. Thus he constrained to give notice dtd. 19/3/2018 to the 2nd opposite party. But nothing is done infavour of the complaint by the opposite parties. Hence he approaches this commission with prayer to return the alleged amount in question and compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service from the opposite parties.
2. The opposite parties did not file version but the 1st opposite party resisted the complaint with maintainability petition No.214/2020 in fag end of the complaint. In which they stated that there is no consumer relationship with the complainant and this opposite party. The complainant has sought to the remedy under the Kerala Co operative Societies Act and Rules by lodging a complaint before the Joint Registrar of Co operative Societies, Alappuzha. The said complaint was disposed off. Thus it can be seen that the complainant has elected the statutory forum for redressing his grievance if any in the matter. It is settled position of law that after the election of one of the forums provided under law, the complainant is not entitled to reagitate the same in any alternate forum. The complaint can execute the order of the Joint Registrar of Co operative societies, Alappuzha as per the provisions enjoined in the Kerala Co operative societies Act and Rules. The instant complaint is one filed by passing the provisions for implementation of the order of the Joint Registrar of Co operative societies, Alappuzha. This it can be seen that this complaint is filed frivolously, suppressing material facts. As submitted above the statutory forum elected by the complainant is a complete code in itself wherein remedies are also provided for implementing the orders passed by it. Therefore at the outset it is submitted that the complaint is hit by suppression of material facts and hence not maintainable and the complaint ought to be rejected on that score alone.
The instant complaint is hit by section 69 & 100 of the Kerala Co operative societies Act and Rules. This opposite party bank is registered under the Kerala Co operative Societies Act. As per the provisions of the Kerala Co operative societies Act, if there is any dispute, the same is to be resolved by referring to the Registrar for Arbitration. The Kerala Co operative societies Act is applicable to the customers of the opposite party bank, whereas the Consumer Protection Act is applicable to consumer at large. Therefore, as against the Consumer Protection Act, the Kerala Co operative Societies Act is a special Act and would prevail over the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is having statutory remedy in the matter and the action of the complainant in rushing to this Commission by passing the statutory remedy is nothing but an abuse of the process of this court.
When the matter in issue falls within the domain of another statute and if the said other statue is a self contained code, barring jurisdiction of other courts, then the Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act will have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the disputes coming under the said statute. Therefore, the instant complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.
3. Points for consideration are as follows:-
In view of the maintainability petition IA No.214/2020 by opposite parties’ we have to consider the question of maintainability at first.
1.Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the 3rd opposite party has levied excess service charge from the complainant?
3. If so, what will be the relief?
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A15 marked. Opposite parties did not file version no oral or documentary evidence was advanced from the side of opposite parties but cross examined the complainant. We have heard both sides.
5. Point No.1:-
The case of the complaint is that he is a loanee of the 3rd opposite party and has taken excess service charge from him at the time of loan transaction as well as other three occasions renewal of loan, than the permissive charge of Rs.300/-. About the said anomaly Registrar of Co operative Society enquired and issue order. Accordingly in subsequent renewal period opposite party did not levy more service charge but they did not return excess levied amount, charged from him.
Ext.A1 to A3 series are pay slip dtd. 12/6/2015, 3/6/2016,29/11/2016 respectively. Ex.tA4 reply from information officer dtd.14/8/2018. Ext.A5 circular dtd.1/10/2015, Ext.A6 circular dtd.16/6/2016, Ext.A7 circular dtd.9/7/2016, Ext.A8 letter from Special Secretary Co operative societies dtd. 24/12/2017. Ext.A9 letter from Co operative Registrar dtd.9/7/2019. Ext.A10 letter from Joint Registrar, Co operative society dtd.27/3/2018. Ext.A11 Notice to General Manager, District Co operative Bank dtd.10/12/2016. Ext.A12 Acknowledgment card with regard to Ext.A11, Ext.A13 letter to Chief Minister dtd. 30/11/2016. Ext.A14 Acknowledgment card with regard Ext.A13 letter and Ext.A15 Acknowledge card with regard Co operative Minister.
The 1st opposite party, petitioner in IA.No.214/2020, is challenging the maintainability of the complaint. Firstly the complainant has elected a statutory forum for redressal of his grievances since Joint Registrar of Co operative society has passed an order with regard to his grievances. Hence the complainant cannot reagitate it in any alternative forum. Secondly the commission under Consumer Protection Act has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint in view of the provisions of Sec.69 &100 of Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.
The contentions raised by the opposite party were looked into by this commission in detail. In said aspect we are relying the classic decision rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition Nos. 823 to 826 of 2001 (Smt. Kalawati & others Vs. M/s united Vaish Co operative Thrift & Credit Society ltd.) which throw light on the actual position on the same.
In which Hon’ble National Commission discussed about the scope and importance of Sec.3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Sec.100 is the provision corresponding in Consumer Protection Act,2019) and it is observed that Consumer Commission is not come under the preview of ‘court’ so there is no bar of jurisdiction.
Sec.100 of Co –operative Societies Act is that reads as follows:-
“Bar of Jurisdiction of courts shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which provision is made in this Act.”
Therefore, we are under the impression that Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act gives an additional protection to the rights of a consumer, if at all any bar or restriction or objection available in any other law that is not a ground to knock at the doors of Consumer Commission. In the instant case the grievance of the petitioner has not been considered by the Registrar, Co –operative Societies moreover Registrar of Co- operative Societies has no power or authority to consider in deficiency of service of the opposite party.
In view of the above we are of the firm opinion that the complaint is maintainable. Hence point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2 &3:-
According to the complainant, the 3rd opposite party has taken excess service charges from him than the allowable rate of Rs.300/- in different occasions. But after the issuance of Ext.B7 circular opposite party had taken only minimum service charge. To prove his case complainant produce Ext.A1 to A3 receipts. According to him those receipts are supporting his allegation. On a perusal of Ext.A1 to A3 receipts dtd.12/6/2015, 3/6/2016 and 29/11/2016 respectively. In those receipts the amount has taken under two heads. In Ext.A2 it is written as Interest and Stomd in Ext.A3 has ‘IC &ST’. During the cross examination complainant agreed that he has given amount under the head ST also and those amounts are less than Rs.300/- But the complainant failed to convince us with a clear explanation about the amount he paid under different heads. Therefore, we are only to presume that the amount he paid in three occasions as interest along with Service Tax and it will be considered as service charge.
In the aforementioned reasons we are only to hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite parties. In the result the complaint is dismiss without any cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 18th day of December , 2020.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri. S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Karthikeyan(complainant)
Ext.A1 - Pay slip dtd.12/6/2015
Ext. A2 - Pay Slip dtd.3/6/2016
Ext.A3 - Pay Slip dtd.29/11/2016
Ext.A4 - Reply from information Officer dtd.14/8/2018
Ext.A5 - Circular dtd.9/7/2016
Ext.A6 - Circular dtd. 16/6/2016
Ext.A7 - Circular dtd. 9/7/2016
Ext.A8 - Letter from Special Secretary dtd.24/12/2017
Ext.A9 - Letter from Co operative Registrar dtd.9/7/2019
Ext.10 - Letter from Joint Registrar dtd.27/3/2018
Ext.A11 - Notice dtd. 10/12/2016
Ext.A12 - AD card
Ext.A13 - Letter dtd.30/11/2016
Ext.A14 - AD card.
Ext.A15 - AD card.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
