1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that she availed a loan of Rs.4.00 lacs from the OP in the year 2009 by pledging title deed of her house and also deposited Rs.40, 000/- towards fixed deposit besides Rs.10, 000/- towards membership share deposit.  It is submitted that the complainant cleared the loan dues in the year, 2011 and the OP issued loan clearance certificate and also released the pledged title deed of the house in favour of the complainant but when the complainant approach the OP to release the fixed deposit amount, the OP handed over one notice on 25.3.2016 to the complainant issued from ARCS, Jeypore in EP No.51 of 2011 arising out of Dispute Case No.07 of 2010.  It is further submitted that she has not received any notice u/s.68 of C.S. Act in Dispute Case No.07 of 2010.  However, the complainant filed show cause in the E.P.  Due to such false claim of the OP, she suffered mental agony causing ill health.  Thus the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to release the fixed deposit amount of Rs.40, 000/- and Membership deposit of Rs.10, 000/- and to pay Rs.5.50 lacs towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant availed loan of Rs.4.00 lacs from the bank in the year, 2009 for repayment term of 5 years and she has neither repaid the entire loan amount nor the bank has released the title deed or has ever issued clearance certificate in favour of the complainant.  It is contended that the book of accounts of the bank for the year, 2010-11 clearly shows that neither the complainant has cleared the loan dues nor any receipt has been issued towards repayment of dues and hence the bank issued notice to the complainant to justify her deposits by producing documents but the complainant did not filed any such document in support of her claim.  It is further contended that the bank demanded the complainant to repay the loan dues and as she failed to repay the loan, the bank filed a dispute before the ARCS vide Dispute Case No.07 of 2010-11 and in spite of order from that court, the complainant did not pay the dues.  The OP also further contended that by influencing some mischief mongers of the bank the complainant could able to obtain the pledged documents and prepared a fake clearance certificate but the loan register, day book and accounts of the bank do not say any clearance of loan dues by the complainant.  The OP also challenged the limitation of this case and jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain this case.  With these and other contentions, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases and the complainant has filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, sanction of loan of Rs.4.00 lacs in favour of the complainant by the OP bank observing necessary formalities vide Loan A/c. No.489 in the year, 2009 is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that she cleared the loan dues in the year, 2011 and the OP issued loan clearance certificate and also released the pledged title deed of the house in her favour but when she approached for release of FD amount, the OP handed over a notice on 25.3.2016 issued from ARCS, Jeypore in EP No.51 of 2011/12 arising out of Dispute Case No.07/2010-11.

5.                     The OP challenging the maintainability of this case stated that disputes if any arise between the members and management of the Cooperative Society, the dispute will be heard by the Cooperative administration u/s.68 of the Act.  While deciding the issue it can be said that, “Remedy under C. P. Act being an additional remedy, jurisdiction of Consumer Fora would not be barred by provisions of Cooperation Act.”  In view of the above facts, the case of the complainant is maintainable under C. P. Act.

6.                     The OP stated in his counter that the complainant has not cleared the loan dues and they have neither issued loan clearance certificate nor released the pledged documents in favour of the complainant.  The OP further stated that by influencing some mischief mongers of the bank, the complainant could able to obtain the pledged documents and prepared fake clearance certificate as if she has cleared the loan dues.  As they found that there was no entry in their book of accounts for the year, 2010-11 regarding payment of any loan dues, they issued notice to the complainant to produce any receipt towards payment of loan dues but the complainant could not produce any document to that effect and hence the bank declared the complainant as defaulter loanee.  As the complainant did not repay the loan, the OP filed a dispute against the complainant before the ARCS, Jeypore.

7.                     The OP in this case stated that the complainant by influencing some mischief mongers of the bank could able to obtain the pledged documents and prepared fake clearance certificate.  It is seen from the record that the OP has filed FIR before the local PS on 16.2.2013 regarding missing of loan file of the complainant.  Their book of account and loan ledger does not show any repayment of loan dues by the complainant in the year, 2010-11, the copy of which is available on record.

8.                      It is most crucial fact of this case that the complainant has neither filed any loan repayment receipt before the OP on demand nor filed the same before us in support of her case.  On the other hand the loan ledger does not show any prepayment of loan dues by the complainant during the year, 2010-11 and hence the loan repayment is not proved at all.  In the above circumstances, the loan clearance certificate produced by the complainant is of no value.  In order to prove that the loan clearance certificate is issued by the OP, the complainant is to produce the supportive documents but the complainant failed do so.  Further it is seen that the reference number of the loan certificate does not agree with the issue register of the OP bank which are available on record also.

9.                     It is seen that due to nonpayment of loan dues, the OP has declared the complainant as defaulter loanee and has filed a dispute case before the ARCS, Jeypore which is in execution stage.  As such, the said case has been decided by the competent court with regard to the same cause of action under which the present case is filed.  Further a missing case of loan file of the complainant has been lodged before the local PS.  The loan ledger of the OP shows that the complainant has not repaid the loan and the property is under charge and mortgage is still existed.  Fake loan clearance certificate is also an issue in this case.  Hence in the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in this case  of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.

10.                   In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)