( 1 ) THE petitioner viz. , Warangal Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. a Co-operative Bank constituted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the District Forum, Warangal in C. D. No. 798 of 1993 dated 25-10-1994.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the revision petition are that the 2nd respondent is a member of the petitioner-Bank. He obtained a loan from the bank and since he failed to repay the same, recovery proceedings were initiated against him. During the pendency of the recovery proceedings, the 2nd respondent has repaid the loan amount and thereafter the movable property i. e. electric motor which was seized from the 2nd respondent during the recovery proceedings was returned to him. The 2nd respondent, however, filed a complaint petition before the District Consumer Forum, Warangal, under the provisions of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 alleging that there was delay in releasing the seized electric motor by the petitioner bank which resulted in loss to the tune of Rupees 1,21,000/- and the same be awarded as damages.

( 3 ) BEFORE the forum, a question arose as to the maintainability of the petition filed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner-Bank has taken the plea that in view of the provisions of Section 76 of the A. P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short the Act ) the petition filed by the 2nd respondent before the forum is not maintainable as the 2nd respondent has failed to exhaust the remedies under the Act. The Consumer Forum held that since the dispute relates to damages for deficiency of service, the same was not covered by the provisions of the Act and accordingly held that it had jurisdiction to decide the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the Co-operative Central Bank.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Narasimha Reddy submits that under Section 121 of the Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit against any order passed, decision or action taken by an arbitrator, a liquidator, the Registrar or an officer or person authorised or empowered by him etc. , is specifically barred. He further submits that under Section 70 of the Act recovery proceedings were initiated against the 2nd respondent by the competent authority and consequent on the loan amount having been repaid by the 2nd respondent, the electric motor which was seized from him was returned to him, therefore, if the 2nd respondent is aggrieved of the order passed under Section 70 of the Act, it is open to him to file an appeal under Section 76 of the Act and since the 2nd respondent has not exhausted such remedy and has opted to approach the consumer forum claiming damages, the same is not maintainable. Mr. Narasimha Reddy further contends that even if there is any dispute between the member and the society, such dispute is only required to be referred to the Registrar for decision as required under Section 61 of the Act and the member has no right to seek the protection under the Consumer Protection Act. He also submits that when a special forum is created under the Cooperative Societies Act and since the provisions of the Act have overriding effect over any other enactment including the provisions contained under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the claim of the 2nd respondent seeking damages before the Consumer Forum is not maintainable and the learned District Consumer Forum erred in holding that the provisions of Section 76 of the Act need not be complied with and the petition is maintainable.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent has suffered damages on account of the delay in release of the electric motor and therefore he fulfils the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protect