CHHATTISGARH RAJYA SAHKARI AVAS SANGH MARYADIT vs SYAMSUNDER SHARMA

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 20.3.2002 in Complaint No. 163/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing that opposite parties 2 and 3 appellants herein, shall pay to the complainant/respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 12,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. payable from 30.8.2000, besides cost of the complaint.

UNDISPUTABLY, the complainant/respondent No. 1 was a member of respondent No. 2 Tridev Co-operative Housing Society. As per bye-laws of the society, it undertook activities of housing construction for and on behalf of its members. The society also facilitates the members in obtaining housing loan from the opposite party/appellant No. 2 herein. The complainant/respondent No. 1 on 20.7.1999 deposited a total sum of Rs. 12,000/- including share money of Rs. 8,000/-, premium Rs. 1,000/-, Panchayat Cess Rs. 1,000/- and registration expenses Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant/respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 applied for sanction of loan to him by appellants. Though the complainant made persistent efforts in this regard, the loan was not released by the appellants to the complainant. Ultimately, the complainant/respondent No. 1 sought withdrawal of the money deposited by him, vide his letter dated 14.6.2000 addressed to appellant No. 1. However, the amount was also not refunded. Hence, the complaint was lodged before the District Forum by the complainant/respondent No. 1. The complaint was resisted by the appellant, inter alia on the ground that it was not competent in view of Section 64 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It was also averred by the appellants that due to some discrepancy and omission in the application, the amount of loan was not released in his favour.

The District Forum in the impugned order held that appellants did not refund the amount deposited by the complainant till the complaint was filed. However, during the pendency of the complaint, the amount as above was refunded to the complainant on 9.10.2001. However, no interest was paid thereon. The District Forum directed payment of interest on the said amount from 30.8.2000.

LEARNED Counsel for appellant in this appeal urged that the complaint was not competent in view of the Section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act. However, it may be noticed that Section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act is not a bar to the additional remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (dead) Through L.Rs. and Others, I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC), has held that provision of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in addition to, and not in derogation to provisions under other laws, for the time being in force. It was observed therein that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act should be interpreted positively and purposefully to give meaning of additional/extended jurisdiction particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided in other provisions, unless there is a bar. Reference in the above cited case was made to the decision of Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC), as also to Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. N.K. Modi, III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC). In view of the above it is clear that jurisdiction of Consumer Forum was not barred, notwithstanding Section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the complainant was refunded the amount on 9.10.2001, therefore, he was not entitled for interest as awarded by the District Forum.

IT may be noticed that the complainant deposited the amount after completing the formalities for obtaining loan as far back as on 20.7.1999. IT also appears from the averments in the complaint that since loan was not released to him, he had requested for refund of the amount as above by letter dated 14.6.2000. However, that was not done, till the complaint was filed and the amount was refunded, during the pendency of the complaint on 25.9.2001. Thus, the refund as above was made with inordinate delay. IT would appear from the letter filed in the record of the District Forum, that Regional Officer of appellant No. 1 intimated MD of appellant No. 2 that the loan of Rs. 1.00 lakh was sanctioned by the appellants to the complainant. IT is, therefore, clear that despite sanction of the loan by the appellants, the amount of loan was not actually released in favour of the halpless complainant/respondent No. 1. This must have resulted in great inconvenience, harassment and frustration to him. Needless to say that the apathy and inaction of the appellants as above is certainly not commendable and deserves to be viewed seriously by all those who are concerned with the appellant''s affairs. The complainant felt harassed and frustrated and ultimately prayed for the refund of the amount deposited by him, by his letter dated 14.6.2000. As noticed above, the appellant however still did not take action and detained the amount till 25.9.2001, which ultimately was refunded to the complainant, on that date during the pendency of the complaint. The refund of amount as above certainly was highly delayed for no apparent reasons. This certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. In our opinion the award of District Forum directing payment of interest on the above amount cannot be questioned by the appellant. In fact the complainant deserved much more compensation in the circumstances of the case. In view of the above, we find that this appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. Appellants shall bear their own cost and shall pay that of the complainant/respondent No. 1 which is quantified as Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only. Appeal dismissed.