ORDER Oral: Justice Surinder Sarup (Retd.). President: - 1. This complaint has been filed on the ground that the complainant- corporation was grafted a grant-in-aid of Rs. 76,00,000/-by the state Government in the last week of March, 1998. The said total amount was deposited with the opposite party No. 1 for crediting the same in the account of the complainant-corporation as per the prevailing practice. Opposite party No. 2 had issued two F.D.Rs amounting to Rs. 44,00,000*- and Rs. 32,0011,000/- on the same day, namely, 31.3.1998 which were encashed on 7.4.1998 and the total amount was credited to the C.C. Account of the complainant-corporation. However, on 25.4.1998, the opposite parties debited this amount of Rs.76,00,000/- in the said account unilaterally, without any notice or information to the complainant. When the matter was taken up with the opposite party by the complainant, they did not take any effective steps for rectifying their error and even repeated requests to them went un-heeded. On the matter being probed, it was discovered that this wrong debiting was done due to the lodging of the bills to the J State Bank of India instead of State Bank of Patiala. In this manner, I the complainant suffered loss of interest to the extent of Rs. 11,27,978/- on the said principal amount. Hence, the complaint. 2. In the reply filed by the opposite parties, they have taken the preliminary objection to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable in view of section 76 of the H.P. Co-operative societies Act, 1968 which bars a suit against any co-operative society, including the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd., being opposite party No.1. The second preliminary objection taken in the reply is that the complaint is also not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 72 of the same Act which provides that in case of any dispute arising amongst the Members etc., the same shall be referred to the Registrar cooperative societies for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes. On merits, the basic facts as stated in the complaint have been admitted in the reply. However, the blame has been shifted in the reply to the State Bank of India for the error done in the matter as narrated above. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. On merits, the basic facts as stated in the complaint have been admitted in the reply. However, the blame has been shifted in the reply to the State Bank of India for the error done in the matter as narrated above. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. None has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. Insofar as the preliminary objections are concerned, our attention has been invited to a decision of the Karnataka State commission in the case of The Trinity House Building Co-op. Society Ltd. & Anr., V. Wilson Peters, 11 (1996) CPJ 452, wherein it has been held that the remedy provided under the consumer protection Act, 1986 is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of the said Act give the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under the other existing laws. That was a case where the interpretation of corresponding provisions of Karnataka cooperative societies Act, 1959 came up for consideration and it was held in the context that under the provisions of section 70 of the said Act, if a dispute is in respect of the business of the co-op. Society arising between the society and its members, the Registrar of co-op, societies shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to decide upon it. In similar circumstances, the complaint of the consumer in that case was held to be maintainable under the consumer law. Since no decision to the contrary has come to our notice, in view of the decision of the Karnataka State Commission referred to above, we find no force in the preliminary objection taken by the opposite parties in their reply. 4. Insofar as. the merits of the case are concerned, the facts stand admitted on the record. Consequently, we come to the conclusion that the opposite parties have been deficient in service by debiting the amount of Rs.76,00,000/- in the account of the complainant-corporation thereby causing of loss of interest to it which / as per the complainant was to the tune of Rs. 11,27,978/-. Be it stated here that other relief(s) have also been claimed in the complaint in addition to the said amount but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant them. 5. 11,27,978/-. Be it stated here that other relief(s) have also been claimed in the complaint in addition to the said amount but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant them. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, this complaint is allowed to the extent that the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,27.978/- to the complainant-corporation as per the prescribed procedure within one month from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The complaint is disposed of accordingly. -