BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 285/2008 Filed on 24.11.2008

Dated : 31.08.2010

Complainant:

Sujatha, W/o Sam Nathaniel, Anizham, T.C 14/1257(2), Palayam, Observatory Lane, Thiruvananthapuram represented by her husband Sam Nathaniel.

(By adv. K.N. Justin)

Opposite party :

The Secretary, Karamana Co-operative Urban Bank, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. P. Ramachandran Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 14.07.2010, the Forum on 31.08.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant had availed a loan from opposite party vide loan No. HP/2001. The complainant had been regularly paying the equated monthly instalments. At the time of availing the said loan the complainant had deposited Rs. 5,000/- towards share amount for availing the loan. On 04.02.2006 the entire loan amount together with interest were repaid in lump sum by the complainant and settled the account. Immediately after settling the loan transaction, the complainant requested the opposite party for the release of the share amount of Rs. 5,000/- which is due to her. But the opposite party had violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and is in default in repaying the share amount. The complainant states that this illegal act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and has caused mental agony as well as physical strain. Hence this complaint.

Opposite party in this case is the Secretary, Karamana Co-operative Bank. In the version, the opposite party states that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The opposite party states that as per an oral request the bank cannot release the share amount. So the bank directed the complainant to file an application in prescribed form. The statement of account filed by the complainant is not correct and the bank is not liable to pay any amount more than the entitled amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant filed an application only on 22.01.2007 and on the basis of that request the bank decided to give that amount and the bank informed the complainant to receive back the share amount. But the complainant did not do so. The opposite party is ready and willing to release the share amount. There were no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party and no loss was caused to the complainant. Hence she is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party. Hence the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

In this case complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavits. From the complainant's side 2 documents were marked as Exts. P1 & P2. Opposite party has filed 2 documents which were marked as Exts. D1 & D2.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant in this case is a consumer?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) to (iii):- In this case the opposite party raised a contention that the dispute in this case is between the Co-operative Bank and its member. So in the dispute between the society and its members the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act shall apply. As per Sec. 69 dispute is to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar. The complainant argued that in 1(1999) CPJ 723 in Karamchari Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Vs. Niranjan Lal Meher it was held that Co-operative Societies Act doesn't bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora. But in this case the complainant's case is that the opposite party did not refund the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which was deposited as share. In that matter the complainant is not a consumer. The aim of taking share is to get profit (dividend). A shareholder does not come under the purview of a consumer. The complainant never hired any service from the opposite party in connection with the share. The complainant has no dispute regarding the loan, he admitted that he had settled the loan transaction. Hence we find that the complainant in this case is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

In the result, complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of August 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 285/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of letter issued by complainant to opposite party.

P2 - Acknowledgement card

P2(a) - Postal receipt dated 04.01.2008

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - R. Jayachandran Nair

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of notice dated 10.02.2009

D2 - Copy of postal receipts

PRESIDENT

jb