PONDICHERRY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY VS S. SABESAN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PONDICHERRY
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Annoussamy, President & Mr. A. Veerapandian, Member
THE PONDICHERRY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY—Appellant
versus
DR. S. SABESAN & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal Nos. 14 & 15 of 1996—Decided on 18.4.1996

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Vaidyanathan, Govt. Pleader.
For the Respondents: In person.

Headnote:(I) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 3(1)(4) - Jurisdiction - Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 - Sections 84 and 144 - Bar - Members of Co-operative Society in normal course expected to get disputes settled by reference to Registrar - Said provision in the teeth of Section 3(1)(4) cannot be construed as barring jurisdiction of Consumer Forum under the Act - What is complained of is absence of allotment of plot contrary to promise made - Section 144 of Pondicherry Cooperative Societies Act does not take out present matter from jurisdiction of machinery created by Consumer Protection Act.
       Held: It results from the above provisions that the jurisdiction of the machinery would be barred only when there is an express and unequivocal bar. Let us examine whether the section of the Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act embodies any such bar. The phrase "such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision" appearing in Section 84 of the Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act purports only to confer jurisdiction but does not exclude jurisdiction of other adjudicatory bodies. In the normal course members of a Co-operative Society are expected to get disputes settled by reference to the Registrar and the parties may also find the course quite convenient. But the above said provision in the teeth of Sub-section 1(4) and Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be construed as barring the jurisdiction of the machinery under the Act.
       The second provision namely Section 144 refers to an order or award of decision passed by the Authorities contemplated under the Act. It excludes appellate jurisdiction to any Court. In this case there is no action taken as specified under Section 144 of the Act. What is complained of is the absence of allotment of a plot contrary to the promise made. Therefore. Section 144 of the Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act. 1972 does not in any manner take out the present matter from the jurisdiction of the machinery created under the Consumer Protection Act. We are therefore unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. (Paras 8 & 9)
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal - Mixed question of fact of law - Cannot be gone into for first time in. appeal.
       Held: The relationship between the parties is a mixed question of fact of law and cannot be gone into for the first time in appeal. We have necessarily to reject it.
       (Para 10)
       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

ORDER

Mr. Justice David Annoussamy, President—These two appeals have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Both the appeals have been filed by the same opposite party.

3. The complainants applied for allotment of house plots and to that effect they have paid admission fee. (Dr. S. Sabesan paid Rs. 20/- and Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy, paid Rs. 102/-) and a share capital (Dr. S. Sabesan paid Rs. 1,000/- and Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy Rs. 918/-) and also the cost of the plot of Rs. 21,240/- each. It was the understanding that the opposite party will allot a plot to each of them within 30 days from 15.3.91 on the basis of the drawal of lots. But such drawal was not held and no specific allotment of plots was made, even though the opposite party has accepted the registration for allotment of house plots.

4. Aggrieved by that fact the complainants approached the District Forum with the following prayers :—

Appeal No. 14/96

1. Regular allotment of house plot, under the scheme cited above.

2. In case the scheme has not come into being so far, the officials concerned may be directed to pay back the entire amount, paid for the purpose (Rs. 22,260/-) plus the interest (24%) as on date.

3. Also, a sum of Rs. 1,000/-incurred by him to meet the expenditures in the entire process may be paid.

Appeal No. 15/96

1. Regular allotment of house plot, under the scheme cited above.

2. In case the scheme has not come into being so far, the officials concerned may be directed to pay back the entire amount (Rs. 22,2400/-) paid for the purpose plus the interest, as on date.

3. Also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- incurred by him to meet the expenditure in the entire process may be paid.

5. The case of the opposite party was that they were ready to allot the plot, but that the matter has gone beyond their control on account of some administrative difficulties and pleaded that even though they were eager to allot the plots they were not in a position to do so. The District Forum by order dated 29.11.95 came to the conclusion that there was a deficiency in service inasmuch as the plots were not allotted as promised and directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 21,240/- with interest @ 16.5% p.a. and also compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- with cost of Rs. 500/-.

6. These orders are assailed on three grounds : The first one is that there is a bar of jurisdiction in respect of matters in which the Co/- operative Societies are involved. The second is that there is no provider of service and beneficiary of service in the case of a Co-operative Society since the complainants themselves are part and parcel of the Co-operative Society and therefore cannot sue the Co-operative Society. The third ground is that the Forum has granted by way of compensation an amount superior to what was claimed by the complainants.

7. Let us take first the bar of jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Section 84 of the Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 and also Section 144 of the same Act and also on a decision of the State Commission, Karnataka in The Kulve Gram Seva Shahkari Sangha Ltd. v. Mahabaleshwar Ramaknshna Bhat, III (1994) CPJ 500 in which it was held that the Co-operative Societies Act prohibits the settlement of dispute arising between the member and a Society touching business of the Society by any Forum other than the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The sections referred to above read as follows :

“Section 84(1)—If any dispute touching the Constitution of the Committee or the management or the business of a registered Society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action by the Society or its Committee against a paid servant of the Society) arises —

(a) Among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased membefs; or

(b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the Society, its committee or any of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis