IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.42/2014 (Against the order made in C.O.P.No.147/2010 dated 06.11.2012 on the file of the District Forum,Madurai.)

THURSDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF JULY 2022

1. The Special Officer, Melur Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Melur, Madurai District. 1st Appellant/1st Opposite Party

2. The Secretary, Melur Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, Melur, Madurai District. 2nd Appellant/2nd Opposite Party -Vs-

M.Perumal, S/o Muthaiah, Ambalakaranpatty Grama Segaram, A.Pudupatty, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Appellants1&2/Opp.Parties-1&2 : Mr.S.Seenivasagan, Advocate. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.M.Senthilkumar, Advocate.

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 17.06.2022 and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. The appeal has been filed by the Special Officer and the Secretary of Melur Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited against the award passed by the District Forum, Madurai on 06.11.2012.

2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:

One Perumal the complainant was the Member of the opposite parties, Co-

operative Society. His Membership No is 6629 .He borrowed a loan on 03.03.2000 to the tune of Rs.3,90,000/-.He has to pay Rs.10,249/- per month as EMI. The complainant also paid Rs.66,274/- towards his membership share. After receiving the loan he regularly paid the monthly installment. For some time he was in abroad. So he paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.10.2005 through his relative one Manjula Balachander for which a receipt was given. Subsequently on 10.11.2009 the complainant was forced to pay Rs.1,10,407/- towards the loan amount. His earlier payment of Rs.1,00,000/- was kept in suspense account . That was not given credit to the loan account. Hence, he requested the bank to give him his loan account as well as to return his payment of Rs.1,00,000/- through registered notice, but that was not complied by the opposite parties. So he preferred this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and also to return his payment of Rs.1,00,000/- with Membership share amount Rs.66,274/-

and to pay cost of the proceedings.

3. Before the District Forum the opposite parties did not file their written version in time. Hence, they were set ex-parte. The application to set aside the ex-parte order was also not entertained. The District Forum after considering the proof affidavit of the complainant and his documents, passed an award directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also directing the opposite parties to deliver loan account and further direct the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to be adjusted towards loan account with cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

4. Aggrieved by the above order this appeal has been filed by the opposite parties stating that the complainant was irregular in payment. While so, the dispute is touching the business of a Co-operative Society’ between a 'Member and the Society’ thus wil be coming squarely under the ambit of Sec 90 (1) (b) of the TNCS Act and has to be resolved under the said provision and before the said Forum. Vide the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme court in the case GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM -Vs- M.KRISHNAN AND ANOTHER (2009 (8) SCC 481) the issues relating to Telephone bills are Governed by Sec.7-B of the Telegraph Act-a special law that overrides the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act-a General law and such a dispute has to be resolved under the Special Act and the same proposition well applies here.

They further averred that ,It is an indisputable fact that