PUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 345, vs SETHUMADHAVAN ,

2026:KER:38148
W.A.No.1152 of 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PREETA A.K.
ND
TUESDAY, THE 2 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WA NO. 1152 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2026 IN WP(C) NO.17094
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
PUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 345,
PUTHUR, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 680014
BY ADVS. SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SHRI.SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SETHUMADHAVAN,
S/O ALUKKAL SARASWATHI AMMA, MULLAMKUNNATH KAVU,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680581
2 THE STATE CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
GX36+6XC, VAZHUTHACAUD, SISUVIHAR LANE,
SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY & REGISTRAR,
PIN - 695010
BY ADV SHRI.K.P.SURESH KUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

2026:KER:38148
W.A.No.1152 of 2026 2

JUDGMENT “C.R.”
PREETA A.K., J.
Appellant herein who is the petitioner in the Writ Petition, is
challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.
(C)No.17094 of 2025 . The Writ Petition was filed inter alia seeking to
set aside Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the Kerala State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission.
2. The appellant Co-operative Bank which had accepted deposits
st
from the 1 respondent to a total of 5,00,000/- ₹ vide different fixed
deposit receipts, had failed to return the amounts in fixed deposit even
st
though the deposit had attained maturity on 02/06/2015. The 1
respondent had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Thrissur, as C.C.No.746 of 2015. After considering the
materials on record, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
passed Ext.P3 order directing the appellant to pay a sum of 5,00,000/- ₹
with 12% interest and also directed to pay 10,000/- as cost and ₹
st
compensation to the 1 respondent/complainant. Even though the
order was passed as early as on 31/12/2021, the appeal against Ext.P3
was preferred by the appellant only in October, 2024 along with a
petition seeking to condone the delay of 825 days in filing the appeal.

2026:KER:38148
W.A.No.1152 of 2026 3
The said petition was considered by the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission and vide Ext.P7, the petition seeking to condone delay
[Ext.P6(a)] was dismissed. Consequentially, Ext.P8 order was passed
dismissing the appeal. The Writ Petition thus came to be filed
challenging Exts.P7 and P8.
3. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had taken
up a contention that the failure to file the appeal in time was solely on
account of the fact that the management of the appellant/Society was
under the management by an Administrator for the period from
10/12/2014 to 07/05/2022. The learned Single Judge considered the
orders which were impugned therein and held that the reasoning of the
Commission was not per se illegal or perverse and that no interference
could be made. Accordingly, Exts.P7 and P8 were upheld.
4. In this appeal, the appellant has taken up a contention
st
that the remedy of the 1 respondent is to prefer an appeal under
Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and that the
learned Single Judge had failed to consider the issue regarding
inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum.
5. It is well settled that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
and its successor, the Act of 2019 is a Special law that has been

2026:KER:38148
W.A.No.1152 of 2026 4
enacted by the Parliament to protect the interest of consumers.
Therefore, the provisions of the Special legislation overrides
notwithstanding the provisions of Section 69 and Section 100 of Kerala
Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Even assuming that the Consumer
Protection Act is a general law, it is a settled position of law that if
there is any inconsistency between two legislations, the later law, even
if general in nature, would override an earlier Special law. Merely
because the rights and liabilities are created between the members and
the management of the Society under the Act and Forums are provided,
it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the Forums
under the Consumer Protection Act which is provided intentionally to
serve a definite cause in terms of the objects and reasons of the Act.
6. Section 3 of the 1986 Act which corresponds to Section 100
of the 2019 Act provides that the provisions of the Consumer Protection
Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other
law for the time being in force. Therefore, even though the Co-
operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder provides for a
mechanism for realisation of money by its creditors, the provisions in
the Co-operative Societies Act do not oust the right of its creditors to
recover the amount by invoking the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act.

2026:KER:38148
W.A.No.1152 of 2026 5
7. That apart, the appellant, a banking institution dealing with
public funds owes a duty to its depositors to make prompt payment of
the funds deposited by them. In so much as the liability to return the
fixed deposit amounts which became due as early as in the year 2015,
is not disputed, harping on technicalities to thwart the claim is to be
highly deprecated.
In the result, we find ourselves in complete agreement with
the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.
However, taking note of the submission made by the counsel for the
appellant seeking 6 months time to comply with the order directing
repayment with interest, we grant 6 months time to the appellant to
comply with Ext. P3 order.
The Writ Appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-

PREETA A.K.
JUDGE
ami/