Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, President—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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 th