Appeal filed on: 13-08-2025 Appeal disposed on: 18.03.2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAJ(A STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH.2, BELAGAVI DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF MARCH, 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE SRI.RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL 1IIEMBER HON'BLE SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, LAI)Y EMBER sclcB2l29lAl234l2O2s The Chairman, 1 Shree Gajanan Gramin Co-op Credit Society Ltd, Gandhi Nagar, Halkarni, Khanapur, Tal: Khanapur, Dist: Belagavi- 591 302 ...Appellant/s

2 The Secretary, Shree Gajanan Gramin Co-op Credit Society Ltd, Gandhi Nagar, Halkarni, Khanapur, Tal: Khanapur, Dist: Belagavi- 591 302

3.

The Branch Manager, Shree Gajanan Gramin Co-op Credit Society Ltd, Gandhi Nagar, Halkarni, Khanapur, Tal: Khanapur, Dist: Belagavi- 591 302 (Bg SrL V. D. C houg qla, Adoo cate)

-Versus-

Shri Honnavadevi Multi-Purpose Sahakari Sangh Ltd, Registered office address: ... Respondent/s Post: Kasaba Nandgad, Tal: Khanpur, Dist: Belagavi, Represented by its Secretary (Bg Srt A.N.Pdtel, Adaocate)

sc /cB2l29 I A 1234 /2025 ORDER BY HON'BLE SMT,SUNITA C.BAGEU/ADI. LADY MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Appetlants/Opposite Parties being aggrieved by the order dated 28.6.2023 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Belagavi in CC.No.792l2021 and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint that, the

1S complainant's society deposited certain amount in {ixed deposits with the Opposite Parties society as detailed below;

requested the Opposite Parties for refund of the said amounts, sc /cB2 /29 / A /234 /2o2s but the Opposite Parties went on postponing the same. Hence, the complaint.

3. After service of notice of the District Commission, the Opposite Parties have appeared through their counsels and filed version. The Opposite Parties have admitted certain allegations of the complainant and denied all other allegations. The Opposite Parties further contented that, the complainant's society is a Iinancial institution, hence as per the CP Act, the complainant's society is not a consumer and hence the complaint frled by the complainant is not maintainable. The Opposite Parties further contented that, the present complaint is barred by limitation. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.

4. After trial, the District Consumer Commission has allowed the complaint in part along with litigation expenses.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties preferred this appeal on various grounds.

6. Heard the arguments. J sc lcB2l29 I A1234 I 2O2s

7. Perused the appeal memo and the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the respondent society had deposited the amount with the appellants' society as per the table below;

8. It is also not in disputed that, after several requests, the appellants' society have not refunded the maturity FD amount to tJ:e complainant's societ5z as agreed. The contention of the appellants in appeal memo and also in version before the lower court is that, the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission as the respondent society is a financial institution and as per the CP Act the complaint is not maintainable and also the complaint is barred by limitation.

9. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that, the District Commission already discussed on sc/cB2/2e lA/23412O2s all contentions taken by the appellants in the version about maintainability and delay and allowed the complaint partly. We also agreed with the order of the District Commission on the said points, because Section 100 of the CP Act revea-ls that;

uThe provisions oJ this Act shall be in addltion to and not ln d.erogation ol the provislons oJ ang other law for the tlme being ln force".

10. The CP Act is an additional remedy to the consumers, hence the complainart has right to file a consumer complaint under the CP Act and further Section 2 (31) of CP Act refers "perso