ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 21.06.2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 217/2016. In this appeal, the appeal of the Respondent/ Complainant was allowed, thereby setting aside the Order dated 13.01.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad (“District Forum”) in CC No. 378 of 2010 wherein the complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent was allowed in part.

2. There was a delay of 366 days in filing the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the Application of Condonation of delay bearing no. IA/18801/2018, the delay was condoned.

3. For the convenience, the parties in this Revision Petition are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Smt. Pushpavathi is referred to as the Complainant. The Telegraph Traffic Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., through The District Co-operative Officer is referred to as the OP-1, The Special Officer In-charge is referred to as the OP-2 and The Personal In-Charge/Chairman is referred to as the OP-3 respectively in this matter.

4. In brief, the husband of the Complainant, Late Mr. M. Janaki Ramaiah, deposited a total of eight Fixed Deposits (FDs) amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- with The Telegraph Traffic Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Hyderabad (“OP Society”) during his lifetime as a retired Govt. teacher. Of this, Rs.2,50,000/- was deposited in his name and Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited in the Complainant’s name on various dates. The OP Society had agreed to pay interest at rates of 12%, 13%, and 14% respectively. However, it was alleged that upon maturity, the OP Society failed to fulfil its obligation of paying both the interest and principal amounts to the Complainant. The Complainant further averred that the number of similar depositors made complaints to the OP Society for payments. Feeling aggrieved by non-compliance, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.378 of 2010 before the District Forum seeking refund of deposit of Rs.4,50,000/-, along with interest and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental strain and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

5. In reply, the OP Society denied all allegations and contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part since the Complainant did not receive any service directly from them. They asserted that the disputes between the parties are of a civil nature, and there is no consumer-service provider relationship between the Complainant and the OP Society. The complaint should be dismissed as it is not maintainable under the law. The Complainant deposited the amount without verifying the by-laws or annual audit reports, making it a private transaction between the Complainant and the former Secretary, ‘Krishna Murthy’. They emphasized that they were not aware of these deposits and thus cannot be held accountable for any alleged deficiency in service. The OP Society also asserted that the Complainant, being a non-member of the society, cannot claim deficiency of service against them. They argued that the provisions of the Co-Operative Societies Act are applicable for resolving disputes between the society and its members, and therefore the complaint should be dealt with accordingly. They admitted that some depositors had filed a complaint against the ex-secretary, resulting in the registration of a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against him before the Metropolitan Session Judge. Further, following the closure of the Society, the District Cooperative Officer appointed an inquiry officer to investigate its affairs under Section 51 of the AP Cooperative Societies Act. The Management Committee of the Society was s