Philomina vs The Secretary, Karamuck Service ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 803 Ker

Kerala High Court

Philomina vs The Secretary, Karamuck Service ... on 9 July, 2025

                                                    2025:KER:50242
WP(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019

                                           -1-


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

   WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947

                          WP(C) NO. 41135 OF 2017

PETITIONER:

             THE KARAMUCK SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK,
             KARAMUCKU, KANDASSAMKADAVU P.O., THRISSUR,
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
             SRI.P.E.SAJAL



RESPONDENTS:

      1      THE KERALA CO OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
             REPRESENTED BY ITSSECRETARY-695001.

      2      SMT. PHILOMINA
             W/O LATE JOY M.K.,
             VADAKKETHALA MUNDASSERY HOUSE,
             KARAMUCKU, KANDASSAMKADAVU P.O.,
             THRISSUR-680613.

             BY ADV. DILIP J. AKKARA

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.07.2025, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.18369/2019, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:50242
WP(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019

                                           -2-



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

   WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947

                          WP(C) NO. 18369 OF 2019

PETITIONER:

             PHILOMINA,
             AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. LATE JOY M.K.,
             VADAKKETHALA MUNDASSERY HOUSE,
             KARAMUCKU, KANDASSANKADAVU P.O.,
             THRISSUR-680 613

             BY ADV.DILIP J. AKKARA


RESPONDENT:

             THE SECRETARY,
             KARAMUCK SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
             KARAMUKKU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.16,
             KARAMUCKU, KANDASSANKADAVU P.O., THRISSUR-680 613

             ADV. P.C.SASIDHARAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.07.2025, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.41135/2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                          2025:KER:50242
WP(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019

                                           -3-




                       MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
            ----------------------------------------------------
            W.P.(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019
             ---------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025

                                  JUDGMENT

W.P.(C) No.41135 of 2017:- This writ petition is filed by a

Primary Co-operative Society, running a co-operative Bank,

aggrieved by the order passed by the Kerala Co-operative

Ombudsman directing it to extend the benefit under the Risk Fund

Benefit Scheme, 2008, holding that the society can recover only the

balance amount after deducting the benefit received under the said

Scheme.

2. The primary contention raised in this writ petition is

that the 1st respondent does not have jurisdiction to decide the

complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent and that the Ombudsman

is constituted solely for the redressal of complaints relating to the

deficiencies in banking and other services rendered by the Co-

2025:KER:50242 WP(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019

operative Societies dealing with the banking issues, going by Section

69A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

3. The petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court

in Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Tvm v. Kerala Co-

operative Ombudsman, Tvm [2016 (1) KHC 52]. Which held,

referring to Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, in

particular, Clause 1(f) which mandates that notwithstanding

anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a

dispute arises between the society and a person, other than a

member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society

or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any

person claiming through such a person, the said dispute shall be

decided by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, which means that no

other court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit

or other proceedings in respect of such dispute.

4. Reference is also made to the judgment of this Court in

W.P.(C) No.23981 of 2015 dated 29.06.2016, wherein this Court, after 2025:KER:50242 WP(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019

considering the powers of the Ombudsman under Section 69A of the

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, held as follows:-

xxxx xxxx xxxx

6. The prime question to be considered is whether the Ombudsman is vested with power under Section 69A of the Act and the Scheme to consider the dispute by and between the bank and its employee namely, the 2 nd respondent. True, under Section 69A, Ombudsman is provided with power for redressing all complaints relating to deficiency in banking or other services rendered by the Co-operative Societies dealing with banking business, in accordance with the terms of the Scheme. In order to regulate the functioning of the Ombudsman only, the scheme was brought into effect by the Government. Clause 7(2)(e) and 13(f) of the said scheme inhibiting the power of Ombudsman are relevant, which read thus:

"7(2)(e)The complaint is in the nature of a dispute under Section 69 of the Act or in the nature of an appeal petition under Section 82 and 83 of the Act.

13(f) one requiring consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence 2025:KER:50242 WP(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019

and the proceeding before the Ombudsman or Ombudsmen, as the case may be, are not appropriate for adjudication of such complaint."

7. Therefore, on a reading of said provisions of the Scheme, it is categoric and clear that whenever there is a dispute by and between the bank and its employees or its members the power of the Ombudsman under Section 69A and the Scheme is excluded.

5. Given the above, it is clear that the 1 st respondent did not

have jurisdiction to consider the dispute raised by the 2 nd

respondent.

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ

petition is allowed, declaring that the Ombudsman, who is the 1 st

respondent, had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by

the 2nd respondent.

W.P.(C) No.18369 of 2019:- This writ petition is filed by the

2nd respondent in the connected writ petition, praying for a

direction to the respondent Bank to credit amounts to which the 2025:KER:50242 WP(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019

petitioner is entitled under the Kerala Co-operative Risk Fund

Benefit Scheme, 2008 and to permit her to close the loan account in

the name of late Joy M.K. by paying the balance due as from the date

of Ext.P1 application.

2. In this writ petition, an interim order was passed on

03.03.2025, making it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to

approach the Bank claiming the benefit of the One Time Settlement

Scheme. The petitioner had approached the Bank and had availed of

the One Time Settlement, repaying the amount due on the debts.

The only remaining issue was the grant of benefits under the Kerala

Co-operative Risk Fund Benefit Scheme. Accordingly, the Bank was

directed to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner.

3. It is pointed out by the Bank that the Bank had

considered the request of the petitioner and passed orders dated

29.05.2025, rejecting the request of the petitioner.

4. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is closed

without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the 2025:KER:50242 WP(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019

same before the appropriate authority. All contentions of the

petitioner are left open.

The Writ Petition is closed as above.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE bpr 2025:KER:50242 WP(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41135/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY THE HUSBAND OF THE 2ND RESPONDNET DATED 22.9.2014.

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFOR ETHE IST RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2016.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 16.6.2017.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2017.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R2(A) PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.C.R.P.10083/2015 (1) DATED 18.03.2016 ISSUED BY JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT R2(b) PHOTOCOPY OF IDENTITY CARD IN FORM 6A DATED 23/8/13 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO LATE JOY 2025:KER:50242 WP(C) Nos. 41135 of 2017 & 18369 of 2019

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18369/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF PETITIONERS APPLICATION DATED 4.12.15 BEFORE RESPONDENT REQUESTING GRANT OF RISK FUND BENEFITS

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 18.3.16 OF JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THRISSUR

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.12.17 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 20.11.17 OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE OMBUDSMAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CO.NO.1073/16

EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.5.19 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R1(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/3/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER