1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. In all these petitions, the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum imposing liability either on the Directors or Ex-Directors of the Cooperative Society in respect of payment of amount to the complainant/s, is subjected to challenge. As common question falls for determination in all these petitions, those are being taken up together.

3. The complainants in all these matters, Respondents herein, are the depositors of the Cooperative Credit Societies / Banks who have not been refunded the amount of deposit/s by the concerned Credit Societies / Banks after completion of the term. Along with the Directors of the Cooperative Society, the complainants have impleaded the concerned Credit Societies / Banks in the complaints presented to the District Consumer Forum and the District Consumer Forum has issued uniform direction against all those Cooperative Credit Societies / Banks as well as the Directors to refund the amount along with interest as well as damages. The petitioners have objected to the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum raising two principal grounds:

1. Firstly, it is contended that the Complaints against the petitioners as well as the Cooperative Credit Societies / Banks would not be entertainable before the District Consumer Forum, as the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, shall have no applicability in respect of functions carried out by the Cooperative Credit Societies / Banks. There is a special enactment in the form of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which provides for presentation of disputes to the Cooperative Court and in view of availability of remedy under the special statute, the complaints ought not to have been entertained by the District Consumer Forum established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The second ground of attack is that in any eventuality, even assuming that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has applicability, the Directors of the banks or members of the Managing Committee of the Cooperative Credit societies cannot be held responsible and no liability can be fixed against them, without observing the procedure as prescribed under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is contended that the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to pass orders against the members of the Managing Committee of the Cooperative Societies / Directors of the Banks.

4. That, so far as applicability of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in respect of transactions carried out by the Cooperative Credit Society / Bank is concerned, the question is no more res integra as the Apex Court, in the matter of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs. & others, reported in 2004 (4) Bom.C.R. 273, has held that:

“the provisions of the Act of 1986 are in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, and as such, the dispute / complaint by a member of a Cooperative Credit Society / bank is entertainable by a forum created under the Act of 1986”.

5. In the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharati House Building Coop. Society and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1043 (1), the Apex Court, while considering the issue of constitutional validity of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has ruled that:

“The Parliament has legislative competence to enact the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.

It is also observed in the said judgment that:

“The provisions of the said Act clearly demonstrate that it was enacted keeping in view the long felt necessity of protecting the common man from wrongs where for the ordinary law for all intent and purport had become illusory. In terms of the said Act, a consumer is entitled to participate in the proceedings directly as a result whereof his helplessness against a powerful b