SHRI MAHAVIR URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD vs MAHENDRA K JAIN

BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 28. 11. 2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in Appeal No. 350 of 2005, Manager, Shree Mahavir Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. , has preferred this revision petition.

BY the impugned order, the State Commission confirmed the order dated 17. 1. 2005 passed by the District Forum, Jalgaon in Complaint No. 098/2004. By the said order, the District Forum directed the petitioner to release the charge created on the mortgaged property against which the additional loan for a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000 was to be given. Admittedly, the loan, even though sanctioned, was not disbursed. Considering the fact that the loan was sanctioned, yet the amount was not disbursed, the District Forum and the State Commission arrived at the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the society.

The State Commission rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner that in view of the special provision in Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the Consumer Fora would not be having any jurisdiction to decide the matter. In our view, the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is additional alternative remedy available to the complainant.

FURTHER, the State Commission rightly observed that mere pendency of co-operative suit filed by the petitioner would not be a ground for interfering with the Order passed by the District Forum. In our view, the aforesaid findings recorded by the State Commission cannot be said to be in any way erroneous which would call for interference.

HOWEVER, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that if appropriate direction is given to the complainant to pay the amount, it would be in the interest of the Society, which is facing financial crunch. In our view, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted because when the sanctioned loan was not disbursed, the society is required to release the property on which charge is created. However, considering the fact that a large amount is due and payable by the complainant to the society, we make it clear that within two months from today, it would be open to the society to approach the co-operative Court where the Society has filed Co-operative suit for attachment of the property in question. It is also directed that for a period of two months, property shall not be released.

WITH these observations, Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. R. P. dismissed.