A V GEORGEKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P 9 notice dated 26-11-1992 issued by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kottayam to the petitioner under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and further for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum from proceeding on the basis of Ext. P 9. A writ of mandamus is also sought to direct the State of Kerala to frame rules to safeguard the interests of persons like the petitioner.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, the second respondent, has no jurisdiction to issue the said notice in as much as the complainants (respondents 3 to 5) before the said Forum are not consumers vis-a-vis the petitioner Sri. A. V. Georgekutty, who is the President of a Co-operative Bank. The following facts have to be stated for a proper understanding of the point raised in this case. The writ petitioner is the President of the Mulakkulam Panchayat Co-operative Bank, Peruva, which is registered as a Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petition filed O. P. No. 891 of 1992 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kottayam (2nd respondent) for grant of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for refusal of the Bank to grant loans each of Rs. 5,000/-, even after sanction. Byelaws 48, 49, and 50 (marked as Ext. P2) permit the Directors to recommend loan applications and the Board, after due inquiry, is empowered to take a decision in the interests of the Bank and in accordance with the byelaws. The Board has also power to cancel loans already granted if the loan is not for a bona fide requirement. In the present case the loans applied for by respondents 3 to 5 have not been granted because of the petitions filed by the son of the 3rd respondent and the father of the 4th respondent etc. The Board submitted a report on 29-6-1992 (Ext. P5) that if loans are granted to respondents 3 to 5, that will result in losses to the Bank. The Board refused to grant the loans and then respondents 3 to 5 filed the O. P. 891 of 1992 before the District Forum claiming compensation on the ground that they were 'consumers' within S. 2(d) of the Act. The writ petitioners filed two counter affidavits (Exts. P 6 and P 7) and the matter was heard and Judgment reserved. At that stage, respondents 3 to 5 filed a petition to implead the Directors of the Bank. The petition is Ext. P8. The District Forum ordered notice as per Ext. P9. The petitioner objected stating that the main case itself is not maintainable and the same may be decided as a preliminary point. But without deciding the same the case was posted to 5-3-1993. Then the present writ petition is filed for questioning Ext. P8 petition and Ext. P9 notice and for the issue of a writ of prohibition etc.

(3.) The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the respondents 3 to 5 to whom grant of loan is refused by the Bank, are not 'consumers' within S. 2(d) of the Consumers' Protection Act, 1986 as they have neither purchased any article nor hired any service from the Bank. Service, unless it is rendered for consideration, cannot fall within S. 2(d). The respondents 3 to 5, being shareholders of the Bank, cannot have a claim as consumers. Their remedy is only by raising a dispute before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under S. 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. When the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted under the Co-operative Societies Act, the District Forum cannot have jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. The motive of respondents 3 to 5 is said to be to obtain a conviction from the District Forum and disqualify the Directors as members of the Bank which is a Co-operative Society. It is stated that the members of the District Forum, other than the retired District Judge, are appointed on political considerations.