The existence of an arbitration clause or a provision under Section 70 of the U.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1975, does not oust the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain a consumer complaint filed by a member of the cooperative society against the society.

Mr. Justice V.K. Mehrotra, President— Both these appeals raise a common question of law and arise on similar facts. They were heard together and are being decided by a common order.

2. Both the appeals are by complainants who had instituted complaints before District Forum, Lucknow seeking redressal against the Cooperative Electricity Supply Company, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow. The District Forum has taken the view that since the complainant was a Member of the Cooperative Society his only remedy was to seek redressal by recourse to arbitration proceedings u/Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1975. In coming to this conclusion the District Forum followed the decision of the National Commission in Dilip Bapat and Another v. Panchwati Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. reported in I (1993) CPJ 68 (NC)= 1993 Consumer Protection Cases page 73. In that decision the National Commission had observed (in para 11) that:

“truly speaking it is not a case of consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act. The right Forum for a member of a Cooperative Society to agitate his grievance is the Cooperative Court under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.”

3. The case before the National Commission related to a dispute between the appellants before it, who were the members of the Cooperative Society and the Society itself about payment of some amount said to be due to the Society from the appellants in respect of a construction work undertaken by the Co-operative Society regarding flats allotted to the appellants.

4. In these appeals it has been urged by Mr. S.K. Effendi, learned Counsel for the appellants, that mere existence of an arbitration clause or a provision under Section 70 of the U.P Cooperative Societies Act did not deprive the District Forum of jurisdiction to go into the merits of the dispute which essentially was a consumer dispute. He has urged that the complainant was a partnership concern and fell within the meaning of the term ‘consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) while the Cooperative Society (Respondent) which was making electric supply to the complainant was amenable to the jurisdiction of the District Forum both as a trader as a person offering goods for sale as also services for consideration. He relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=I (1994) C.R.C. page 202, to the effect that being a beneficial piece of legislation, its provisions should receive a construction favourable to the consumers.

5. Mr. Effendi has brought to the notice of Commission the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Triveni Karmachari Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., and Others v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and Others, 1995 (II) Lucknow Civil decisions, in which a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has taken the view that the decision of the National Commission in Dilip Bapat’s case does not oust the jurisdiction of the Redressal Agencies constituted under the Act in Consumer Disputes between a member of a Society and the Society itself.

6. Mr. Ram Raj, Advocate appearing for the respondent Cooperative Societies, has stressed that under Section 24 of the Act the decision given by the National Commission was final and as such was binding upon the State Commission as well as the District Forum and further that the Allahabad High Court in the case of Triveni Karmachari Satniti eventually dismissed the writ petition and had made reference to Bapat’s case in the passing. He urged that in view of the clear provisions in Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act which required that a dispute between a member and Society ‘shall be referred to arbitration’ and it was clear that the only remedy which was available to the complainants in both these cases was that under Section 70 and the view taken in this regard by the District Forum was sound in law.

7. We find