KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 20/2020

ORDER DATED: 14.07.2021

(Against the Order in I.A 147/2019 in C.C. 216/2018 of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN         : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                         : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                     : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Noel V. Samuel, Vayalmundakel House, Melukavumattom P.O., Kottayam – 686 652.

(By Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar)

                                             Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. The Melukavu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 3183, Melukavumattom, Kottayam – 686 652 represented by its Secretary. 

2. Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Society (General), Meenachil, Pala, Kottayam-686 575.  

ORDER

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainant in C.C. No. 216/2018 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (in short the District Forum) has filed the revision petition against the order of the District Forum in I.A. No. 147/2019 by which the complaint filed by him was dismissed finding that the complaint was not maintainable. 

The parties are referred to, according to their status in the complaint. 

The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties alleging that the 1^st opposite party Co-operative Bank denied its A class membership to him and his application for granting A class membership was rejected by the opposite party for the lame reason that he is residing outside the territorial working area of the 1^st opposite party.  According to the complainant he got fixed deposits and S.B. Account in the 1^st opposite party bank and so he is entitled to get A class membership of the 1^st opposite party bank. 

The 1^st opposite party filed I.A. 147/19 contending that the complaint is not maintainable since there is no consumer relationship between them and the complainant.  It is stated by the 1^st opposite party that the application for A class membership of the complainant was rejected by the Board of Directors since the complainant is residing outside the territorial operational area of the 1^st opposite party bank and he is residing within the operational area of Melukavu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 549.  So the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 

The District Forum considering the provisions of the bylaws of the 1^st opposite party found that the complainant cannot claim A class membership of the 1^st opposite party bank on the ground that he got bank accounts in that bank.  The District Forum found that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of the 1^st opposite party bank as there is no service offered for consideration and if the complainant has got any dispute regarding the administration of the 1^st opposite party bank, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum.  The District Forum observed that they do not intend to interfere in the administrative matters of the 1^st opposite party bank.  The District Forum allowed I.A 147/19 and dismissed the complaint on t