IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Commissions under Consumer Protection Act have jurisdiction to try disputes arising between Co-operative Societies and its members.

JUDGMENT

B. Sudheendra Kumar, President—The appellant is the 1st opposite party in C.C.No.492/2010 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant joined the scheme ‘Sowbhagya’ started by the 1st opposite party Society. The said scheme was introduced for the persons who were working in the Police Department. The scheme was introduced for the welfare of the members of the Police Department. As per the scheme, the complainant had to pay Rs.255/- for 60 months. The scheme was commenced on 01.10.2002. As per the scheme, the 2nd opposite party was the authorized recovery officer to recover the monthly instalment of Rs.255/- from the salary of the complainant. The complainant had given authorization letter to the 2nd opposite party to deduct the above said amount from the salary of the complainant. The maturity period of the scheme was 01.10.2007.

3. As per the scheme, the 1st opposite party had to return the fixed amount to the complainant. On 07.02.2009, the 1st opposite party sent a notice to the complainant stating that since the complainant had defaulted to pay the monthly installments, he was entitled to get interest only on the amount actually paid by him, which would come to Rs.17,027/-, from the 1st opposite party. The complainant contended that since the 2nd opposite party was responsible for deducting the amount from the salary of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get the entire amount covered by the scheme. Since that was not given, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties.

4. The 1st opposite party filed a version admitting the membership of the complainant in the scheme. The 1st opposite party also admitted that the 2nd opposite party was the authorized person for recovering the monthly instalments from the salary of the employees. As per the scheme, if and only if the complainant had paid 60 monthly instalments without default, the complainant was entitled to get the benefit under the scheme. There was a due of eight instalments from the complainant when the scheme was complete. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get only the actual amount paid with interest. As per the bylaw, it is the duty of the members to pay the entire instalments either directly or through the salary. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.

5. The 2nd opposite party filed a version admitting that he was the recovery officer to recover the monthly instalments from the salary of the complainant. The 2nd opposite party admitted that he used to recover the amount as per the authorization given by the complainant. However, during the months of 02/2004, 03/2004, 04/2004 and 05/2004, since the name of the complainant was not in the list sent by the 1st opposite party for recovering the amount from the salary, the 2nd opposite party did not recover the instalment amount during those months from the salary of the complainant. It was further contended by the 2nd opposite party that except in those four months, in all other months, the instalment amount had been recovered from the salary of the complainant. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 2nd opposite party.

6. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked for the complainant. RW1 was examined and Exhibits R1 to R12 were marked for the opposite parties. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the 1st opposite party to pay the entire amount as per the scheme to

the complainant with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realisation.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the National Commission in Anjana Abraham vs Koothattukulam Farmers Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., reported