IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between members and cooperative society in view of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 3-Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983-Sections 90 and 156-Jurisdiction of consumer forum-Respondents being members of appellant society, had pledged paddy bags for obtaining loan-Appellant society issued notices to respondents demanding payment of loan amount with interest thereon-Respondents filed petitions in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking direction to appellant to release paddy bag pledged on receipt of loan amount-Appellant raising preliminary objection that Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between members of cooperative society-District Forum granted relief in favour of respondents-Appeal-State Commission held that complaints filed by respondents were not maintainable having regard to Section 90 of the Cooperative Societies Act-Revision-Whether Section 90 of the Act ousts jurisdiction of Consumer Forum-(No)-Complaints filed before District Forum were maintainable.
       Held : As per Section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation to any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, better the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar. (Para 12)
       Thus, having regard to all aspects we are of the view that the National Commission was right in holding that the view taken by the State Commission that the provisions under the Act relating to reference of disputes to arbitration shall prevail over the provisions of the 1986 Act is incorrect and untenable. The National Commission, however, did not take note of the fact that the State Commission had not decided the other contentions raised in the appeals on merits. We are inclined to accept the alternative submission made on behalf of the appellant for remanding the case to the State Commission for deciding the other issues on merits while affirming that the complaints before the district forum made by the respondents were maintainable and the district forum had jurisdiction to deal with the disputes. In this view, while affirming the order of the National Commission as to the maintainability of the disputes before the forum under the Act, we remand the appeals to the State Commission for their adjudication on other issues on merits without going to the question of maintainability of the disputes before the forum under the 1986 Act. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-The respondents, being the members of the appellant-society, had pledged paddy bags for obtaining loan. The appellant-society issued notices to the respondents demanding payment of loan amount with interest thereon. The respondents filed petitions in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruchirapally seeking direction to the appellant to release the paddy bags pledged on receipt of the loan amount or in the alternative to direct the appellant to pay the market value of the paddy bags with interest thereon from the date of pledging till the date of release and also to pass an order for compensation for mental agony and suffering. The appellant contested the claims of the respondents before the District Forum raising a preliminary objection that Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between members and cooperative society in view of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (for short the Act ). The District Forum, in the light of the pleadings of the parties, raised the following points for determination:-

"(1) Whether the complainants are consumers and whether there is any consumer disputes within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and whether this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints of this nature and decide the issue?

(2) Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party in all the complaints?

(3) Whether the complainants in all the complaints are entitled to the reliefs prayed for?"

2. The District Forum answered the points 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents and granted relief.

3. The appellant took up the matters in appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The respondents also filed appeal to the extent they were aggrieved in regard to payment of interest from 14.9.1992. The State Commission, by the common order, allowed the appeals filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents. The State Commission held that complaints filed by the respondents were themselves not maintainable having regard to Section 90 of the Act. Hence, the State Commission did not deal with the other contentions.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the respondents approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by filing revision petition. The National Commission, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and dealing with the contentions advanced by them, found fault with the order of the State Commission. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed. The order of the State Commission was set aside restoring the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that (1) Section 90 of the Act impliedly ousts the jurisdiction of all courts and tribunals including that of a civil court under Section 9 CPC and the Consumer Forum created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 1986 Act ) from adjudicating upon the issues falling within the scope of said Section; on the facts of the present case, the dispute is covered by the said Section. For this purpose, he relied on Section 156 of the Act; (2) the Act being a special enactment and when specific provisions are made exclusively to deal with the disputes between a cooperative society and its members, the disputes raised before District Forum by the respondents were not maintainable; (3) The Act read with the Rules creates special rights and liabilities for the members and the management and lays down that all questions about the said rights and liabilities are to be determined by the Registrar and that has the provisions for appeal, revision and review. Hence the case in any event is covered by the proposition (2) set out at page 682 in Dhulabhai and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another [1968(3) SCR 662]; and (4) If the argument of the respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1244

IMPORTANT POINTConsumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between members and cooperative society in view of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between members and cooperative society in view of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act.