An award passed by a Sub-Registrar against a respondent despite the order of the District Consumer Forum holding that the entire loan amount was discharged is invalid.

CRP (MD) No.521 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on

17.08.2023

Pronounced on

13.12.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

C.R.P.(MD) No.521 of 2021

and

C.M.P(MD)No.2770 of 2021

R.Angusamy

... Revision Petitioner

Versus

V.Chinnandi

... Respondent

Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order made in

C.M.A(CS)No.1 of 2018 dated 25.02.2020 on the file of the Principal District

Court (FAC), Theni reversing the order made in A.R.G.No.3496/2004-2005

on the file of the Co-operative Sub Registrar (Housing), Uthamapalayam.

For Revision Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumar

For Respondent : Ms.M.Nila

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (MD) No.521 of 2021

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred as against the order

made in C.M.A(CS)No.1 of 2018 dated 25.02.2020 on the file of the

Principal District Munsif Court (FAC), Theni reversing the order made in

A.R.G.No.3496/2004-2005 on the file of the Co-operative Sub Registrar

(Housing), Uthamapalayam.

2. According to the Revision Petitioner, the Respondent failed to

pay the entire loan amount and wrongly claimed benefit under G.O.(MS)No.

113 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 20.05.2008. It is

submitted that according to the Government Order, the Respondent ought to

have paid the default loan amount on or before 30.09.2008, then only he is

entitled to get benefit of the said Government Order. The Respondent failed

to prove that he has paid the entire loan amount and he is entitled for the

benefit of G.O.(MS)No.113. The Respondent inspite of sufficient

opportunities given to him to defend his case, miserably failed to contest his

case before the Arbitrator. Hence, an award has been passed against the

Respondent.

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (MD) No.521 of 2021

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner

would submit that the order of the District Consumer Forum will not take

away the power of Arbitrator under Section 90 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative

Societies Act and the power conferred under statute is an independent power.

However, the Appellate Court erroneously held that the Arbitrator has

nullified the order of the District Consumer Forum and imposed the cost on

the Revision Petitioner who performed his official duty and the Revision

Petitioner had no personal vengeance or motive against the Respondent. He

would submit that the findings rendered in the consumer proceedings relates

to the deficiency of service whereas the arbitration proceedings relates to the

recovery of loan due from the member. The Appellate Court failed to take

note of the fact that the Respondent has not proved that he has paid the entire

loan amount and entitled for the benefit of G.O.(MS)No.113. Since the

Appellate Court has not gone into the core issue of payment of loan amount

by the Respondent, the Revision Petitioner has approached this Court to set

aside the order made in C.M.A(CS)No.1 of 2018, dated 25.02.2020 on the

file of the Principal District Court (FAC), Theni reversing the order made in

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP (MD) No.521 of 2021

A.R.G.No.3496/2004-2005 on the file of the Co-operative Sub Registrar

(Housing), Uthamapalayam.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent would submit that the order passed by the Sub-Registrar as

against law and when the entire loan amount was discharged and the District

consumer forum in C.C.No.118 of 2010 had specifically held that the entire

loan was discharged, the order passed by the Sub-Registrar suppressing the

warrant issued by the District Consumer Forum in E.A.No.15 of 2015 as

against the Respondent is against the provisions of the statute and amounts to

contempt and abuse of process of l