Mr. Justice G.G. Sohani, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.12.91 passed by the District Forum, Jhabua in Case No. 9/93.

2. The appeal arises out of a complaint filed by the appellants. The case of the complainants in brief was that they had taken a loan for the purchase of the tractor from the opponent-Bank which is a co-operative society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and that as a security for the repayment of loan and payment of interest they had hypothecated the tractor so purchased with the opponent under the agreement executed by the complainants in that behalf. It was averred that the said tractor was insured till 27.2.87 and thereafter it was the duty of the opponent-Bank to keep the tractor insured but the opponent failed to do so. It was further averred that the tractor met with an accident on 2.5.88 causing death of one Madiya and in the proceedings commenced before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the legal representatives of deceased Madiya claiming compensation, an interim award was passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act directing the complainants to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants in that case. It was contended that the complainants became liable to pay that amount on account of negligence of the opponents in not getting the policy of insurance renewed. The complainants, therefore, contended that there was thus deficiency in service on the part of the opponents which entitled them to claim relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. The claim was resisted by the opponent. It was contended that under the loan agreement executed by the complainants, the tractor was in their possession and use and it was the duty of the complainants to keep the hypothecated tractor insured. The District Forum held that no case was made out for grant of any relief to the complainants. Aggrieved by that order the complainants have filed this appeal.

3. At the time of hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed under the Act. Our attention was invited to the provisions of Section 64(1) read with Section 82 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. On behalf of the appellants it was strenuously contended that the jurisdiction of the Redressal Forum under the Act to entertain the complaint was not barred.

4. Before we proceed to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties it would be useful to refer to facts which are not in dispute. It was not disputed that the opponent is a co-operative society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It was also not disputed that advancing loan for purchase of tractors and agricultural implements and securing repayment of loan and payment of interest by hypothecation of goods purchased with the help of advance was the business of that society. It could not be disputed that the dispute raised by the complainants before the District Forum under the Act was a dispute between the society and a person who had been granted loan by the society and that the said dispute arose out of an agreement alleged to have been entered into between the complainants and the society in connection with the business of the society. The question for consideration is whether the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain such a dispute under the Act was barred.

5. We may at this stage refer to Clauses (a) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which are as under : —

“64. Disputes.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, (any dispute touching the constitution, management or business, terms and conditions of employment of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registrar) by any of the partiesto the