sc lcB2l29lAl234l2O2s1

sc /cB2l29 I A 1234 /2025

ORDER BY HON'BLE SMT,SUNITA C.BAGEU/ADI. LADY MEMBER

1. 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 1S that, the 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;

"The 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 "person" which includes the society, hence respondent society is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable under CP Act. Further the said fixed deposits were matured in 2016 and 2020. However in spite of several requests, till today the appellant society has not refunded the matured amount to the respondent society. Hence there is continuous cause of action, hence the complaint is well within a time. It is well settled a legal position that, inspite of several requests, after maturity of the fixed deposits, the appellant society has not refunded the maturity fixed deposit amounts to the respondent's society sc lcB2l29 I A 1234 l2o2s which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the appellant's society.

11. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is just and proper. No interference required. Accordingly, \\ie proceed to pass the f