F.A.No. 248 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.No.97 OF 2005
 DISTRICT FORUM GUNTUR

Between:

Tajuddin Baig S/o Ibraheem Baig
age about 60 years, Occ: Vegetable Vendor
R/o 3-6-50, Mahammedya Street No.4,
Near Mosque, Repalle, Guntur Dist.

                                                                             Appellant/complainant

A N D

1.    The Repalle Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Rep. by its President,
Sri Kalepalli Sambhamurthy,
Ring Road, Repalle-522 265,
Guntur District

2.  The Deputy Registrar of
     Coopertive Societies of Tenali,
     Marrispet, Tenali.

                                                              Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the appellant               Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the respondent No.1   Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy
Counsel for the respondent No.2   Served

          QUORUM:      SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
                                                        &

                              SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

                        TUESDAY THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE                         

                                         TWO THOUSAND NINE

          Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)

***

          The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

          The complaint filed by him in C.D.No.97 of 2005 was dismissed by the District Forum Guntur on the ground that the respondents who are the authorities under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act demanded the amount from the appellant @ 20% which include the interest agreed upon at 18% per annum + penal interest @ 2% is as per the provisions of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act.

          The facts in proof as set out in the complaint are that the appellant on 11.6.2001 obtained a loan of an amount of Rs.one lakh on deposit of his title deeds with the respondent no.1 bank and also on execution of the relevant documents pertaining to the loan.  The rate of interest agreed upon is 18% + 2%.  The respondent no.1 calculated compound interest on agreed interest and forwarded the loan account to the respondentno.2 for taking up recovery proceedings.  The respondent no.2 without  giving any opportunity and hearing the appellant issued auction proceedings against the mortgaged property.  On 7.4.2005 the auction was held in pursuance of proceedings NO.EP47/04-05 dated 31.4.2005.

          The respondents contested the claim.  It was contended that the appellant was a defaulter.  The loan sanctioned to the appellant was governed by the provisions of A.P.Cooperative Societies Act 1964 and the rules made thereunder and also of the bye-laws of respondent no.1 bank. The respondent no.1 initiated arbitration proceedings before the respondent no.2 u/s 71(1) and 61(1) of A.P.Cooperative Societies Act-7 of 1964 for recovery of the loan along with interest.  Award u/s 62 of A.P.Cooperative Societies Act-7 of 1964 was passed on 18.12.2003 for recovery of Rs.1,75,022/- with interest @ 20% from 31.8.2003 till payment.  The first respondent filed E.P.No.47/04-05 for recovery of the decretal amount along with interest and costs.  The appellant was informed at every stage of the case to repay the loan and he was given ample opportunity. On 31.3.2005 a demand notice was issued for sale of mortgaged property.  There were no procedural lapses on the part of the respondent no.1.  With an intention to delay the matter the appellant has filed the complaint before the District forum which has no jurisdiction over the disputes covered by the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act and decrees passed thereunder.  In stead of preferring  appeal before the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada u/s 76 (1) of A.P.Cooperative Socieites Act, the appellant filed the complaint which is not maintainable.  As the appellant had not paid the due amount inspite of notice dated 10.11.2004,  on 31.3.2005 the sale date was fixed.  The Sale Officer adjourned the sale of the mortgaged property due to filing of a claim petition by the wife of the appellant herein on which enquiry was proposed to be conducted and on failure of the appellant’s wife to turn up at the enquiry her petition was dispose of exparte and the result was communicated to her by registered post.  The wife of the appellant has also not filed any appeal against the order dismissing her application by the Sale Officer.

          The point for consideration is whether there is any ground to interfere with the impugned order? 

          There is no dispute in regard to the facts of the appellant obtaining loan of Rs.one lakh from the respondent no.1 and on default in payment of the loan instalments committed by him, the respondent no.1 initiated arbitration proceedings whereon the respondent no.2 on 18.12.2003 passed award under section 62 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act against the appellant for an amount of Rs.1,75,022/- with interest @ 20% per annum.  Consequent to the failure of the appellant in satisfying the award, the respondent no.1 initiated execution proceedings No.E.P.47/04-05 for recovery of the decretal amount along with interest and costs.

          Being aggrieved by the award passed by the respondent no.2 and on initiation of execution proceedings by the respondent no.1 for the satisfaction of the award passed against him, the appellant has filed the complaint before the District forum instead of filing appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal.  The contention of the appellant that without issuing any notice to him, his property was put to sale, has no force in the light of the fact that he filed the petitioner in I.A.No.121 of 2005 before the District Forum praying for stay of auction of the mortgaged property which the District Forum allowed by its order dated 21.4.2005.  The appellant has not approached the District Forum before the respondents no.1 had taken steps by invoking arbitration proceedings.  Even after the award was passed the appellant has not chosen to challenge it before the appropriate appellant authority i.e., Cooperative Tribunal.  A course of law was invoked and the appellant had submitted to it without making any challenge thereof.  In the circumstances, the appellant cannot choose to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer forum under the C.P.Act.  The appellant cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of different tribunals constituted under different Acts for the same cause of action.  Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum.  The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER

                                                                        Dt. 09.06.2009