IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.14120 of 2007 Between: 1 The managing Director, AP. Co-Op. Housing Society Federation Ltd., Beside Sundarayya Vignana Kendram, Baghlingampally,Hyd-44. 2 The Person-in-charge, Bandar Co-Operative Building Society Ltd., Office of the District Co-Operative Officer, Ghandhinagar, Machiliaptnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Kotti Rama Rao, S/o.Late Bala Kotaiah, RTC Colony, Machilipatnam. 2 The Person-in-Charge Bandar Co-Operaive Building Society Ltd., Office of the District Co-Operative officer, Gandhinagar, Machilipatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, a order or direction to call for the records pertaining to the orders dt. 01.03.2007 in F.a.No.142/2007 on the file of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad, confirming the order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal forum-I, Krishna District at Machiliaptnam in C.C.No.39 of 2006 dt. 28.11.2006, and quash the same, and consequently dismiss the complaint of the first respondent as not maintainable. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.14118 of 2007 Between: 1 The Managing Director,AP Co-op.Housing Society Federation Limited, Beside Sundarayya Vignana Kendram Baghlingampally, Hyderabad-44 2 The Regional Manager, AP Co-op.Housing Society Federation Limited, Regional office, Labbipet, Vijayawada-10 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Adapa Nageswara Rao S/o.Late Nageswara Rao D.No.20/2-1,Parasupet, Behind Central Bank Machilipatnam, Krishna District-520010 2 The Person-in-charge, bandar Co-operative Buildings Society Limited, office of the District Co-operative officer Gandhinagar, Machilipatnam-521002 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 1.3.2007 in FA.No.16/2007 on the file of the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,at Hyderabad, confirming the order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-I, Krishna district at Machilipatnam in CC.No.28 of 2006 dated 23.10.2006 and quash the same and consequently dismiss the complaint of the first respondent as not maintainable. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.411 of 2009 Between: The A.P Co-Operative Society Federation Ltd Bagh Lingampally Hyderabad rep.by its Managing Director ..... PETITIONER AND 1 S.Narayana Reddy S/o Late S.V.R Reddy R/o. LIG-51 Dr A.S Rao Nagar ECIL Post Hyderabad R.R District 2 E.C Employees Co-Operative House Construction Society Ltd R/o. LIG-51 Dr A.S Rao Nagar ECIL Post Hyderabad R.R District 3 The President E.C Employees Co-Operative House Construction Dr A.S Rao Nagar ECIL Post Hyderabad R.R District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records pertaining to the orders dt 28-8-2008 in F.A No.669/2005 on the file of the A.P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad Confirming the order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-1 Hyd District in C.C No.320 of 2003 dt 18-01- 2005 and consequently dismiss the complaint of the 1st respondent as not maintainable. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.14118 of 2007, 14120 of 2007 and 411 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) These writ petitions are filed by the A.P.Co-operative Housing Society Federation Limited (for short “the Federation”), which is also called as ‘Housefed’, against the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as confirmed by the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. The brief facts are that the 1st respondent herein-borrower- complainant in each of the writ petitions, filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against the person in charge of the Co-operative Society Limited as well as the Regional Manager and Managing Director of the A.P.Co- operative Housing Society Federation Limited. The said Consumer Cases were filed on the ground that the borrowers are State Government employees and they were granted loans by the Society and the said loans were repayable in equal instalments together with interest and that the borrowers have already paid the entire amount with interest to the Society and the Society has passed a Resolution acknowledging the receipt of all the instalments and resolved to return the original documents to the borrowers, but inspite of the same, the documents have not been released by the petitioners. The said Consumer cases were opposed by the Federation, which had contended that the said loan was no doubt advanced to the borrowers through the Society and the borrowers executed an agreement with the Co- operative Society on 13-12-1994 for assigning property with equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds in favour of Housefed. Accordingly, the Co-operative Society executed a registered assignment deed in favour of Housefed. According to the petitioners, the entire loan amount has not been repaid and the substantial amounts are still due and payable by the borrowers. It is also alleged that there is no element of service involved, as it is a loan transaction and as such, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not attracted. Before the District Forum, evidence was let in by the borrowers as well as the Federation. Though the Co-operative Society merely adopted the counter filed by the Federation, the borrowers filed certain exhibits and during their evidence they asserted that they paid the entire amount and that no amount is due and payable, as is evident from the Resolutions and records of the Society. The Federation also filed statement of account and on examination thereof, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the amounts paid by the borrowers are not reflected in the said statement of account and as such, the District Forum accepted the contention of the borrowers that the entire amounts have been paid by them to the Society and consequently, found deficiency of service on the part of the Society as well as the Federation and allowed the complaints directing the Society and the Federation to return title deeds and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards costs in each case. The Federation questioned the said orders in the appeals before the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and by separate orders in each case passed by the State Commission, the said appeals have been dismissed by concurring with the findings of the District Forum. The present writ petitions are moved by the Federation questioning the aforesaid orders. Heard both sides. Though the aforesaid writ petitions invoked Certiorari jurisdiction of this court, neither the State Commission nor the District Forum is impleaded as a party in these writ petitions. However, ignoring the said deficiency, on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners has made various submissions including reliance placed on the additional material papers now produced in W.P.M.P.No.6611 of 2009 in W.P.No.14118 of 2007 and W.P.M.P.No.6578 of 2009 in W.P.No.14120 of 2007. The documents filed along with the said applications are ledger accounts of the Society, and basing on them, it is urged that as per the said ledger accounts, the borrowers evidently have not made entire payment of the loan amount and still some amounts are due and thereby, the orders of the forums below are not sustainable. We have heard the party in person appearing in W.P.No.411 of 2009, who is a borrower-complainant himself. ` On consideration of the material and the contentions of both sides, it is evident that the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission are based upon appreciation of evidence, which was led before District Forum, and even if there is an error of appreciation, under Certiorari jurisdiction of this court, the same cannot be corrected. The errors, as sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not errors of jurisdiction nor the judgments impugned can be said to be perverse. It is also to be noted that though there is equitable mortgage in favour of the Federation, after filing of these writ petitions, the original documents of the borrowers have been returned by the Federation to them under the threat of contempt. Whatever may be the reason for returning the documents, once the original title deeds are returned, the equitable mortgage does not subsist. So far as W.P.No.411 of 2009 is concerned, however, the original documents have not been returned, on account of interim stay granted by this court on 20-01-2009. Even, in that case also, as per the orders of both Forums below, borrower had repaid the entire amount and the Society confirms that no amount is due and payable as against the said loan. However, according to the Federation, still an amount of Rs.16,000/- is due as per the ledger account of the Society. However, the documents, which are now produced before us, are not produced before the Forums below though adequate opportunity was given. In W.P.Nos.14118 of 2007 and 14120 of 2007, the Federation had produced only Ex.B-1 in each case, which according to the Forums below, do not reflect the payments made by the borrowers, as such, they were not taken into consideration. Similarly, in W.P.No.411 of 2009, the Federation had produced Ex.B-3-loan ledger, which also does not contain payment details made by the borrower and as such, Forums below did not place any reliance on Ex.B-3. In the circumstances, therefore, the mere error of appreciation cannot be a ground to interfere with the orders of the Forums below and consequently, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground. So far as the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to the present transaction is concerned, it is to be appreciated that under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to and not in derogation or the provisions of any other law. The transaction between the borrowers and the Society cannot, therefore, decide the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and the Forums below have rightly appreciated the said aspect and allowed the complaints. Therefore, we are not inclined to take a different view than taken by the Forums below. In the circumstances, therefore, all the writ petitions are devoid of merit and they are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to take appropriate action, if they are so advised, in accordance with the provisions of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, if the same is permissible in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 20-03-2009 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}