Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— This appeal by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is directed against the order dated 10.5.93 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore (Urban) in Complaint No. 2276/92 directing the opposite party to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs. 71,540/- with interest thereon.

2. The opposite party, is a House Building Co-operative Society. It is the case of the complainant that he became the member of the opposite party-Society and deposited a sum of Rs. 71,040/- on various dates for allotment of a site measuring 50’ x 80’ from the opposite party-Society. The opposite parties did neither allot the said site nor made refund of the said amount to the complainant. So the complainant sought refund of the said amount from the opposite parties with interest thereon.

3. The opposite parties filed their version and admitted the fact that the complainant had deposited the amount as averred by the complainant with interest seeking allotment of the site. The opposite parties further averred that it could not allot the site as the land-holders had filed writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court and had obtained stay orders, so they were not in a position to allot the sites.

4. The opposite parties nextly averred that the complaint was untenable under the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and the complainant cannot be classified as a ‘consumer’ under the provisions of the Act. The opposite parties, on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed.

5. The District Forum considered the material placed on record by the parties and held that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service in not refunding the amount deposited by the complainant and in that view directed the opposite parties to refund the said amount to the complainant with interest thereon.

6. We have called for the records and received and we have also heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties referred to the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and submitted that the Redressal Forum under the Act have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such question and so the complaint is untenable.

8. The provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read as under :

“3. Act not in derogation of any other Law—The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

9. This would go to show that the provisions of the C.P. Act, are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The C.P. Act, gives the consumer an additional remedy, besides those which may be available under other existing laws.

10. The grievance relating to loss or injury caused on account of negligence and deficiency in the performance of service which are hired for consideration have been classified for special protection under the Act and in such a case, the aggrieved consumer is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Redressal Forums constituted under the Act seeking a relief as specified in the Act.

11. The National Commission, in District Manager, Telephones, Patna and Another v. Dr. Tarun Bharduar and Another reported in I (1992) CPJ 47 (NC). Page 171, while considering the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885, observed at para 5, as under :

“5(b) Whether the State Commission has jurisdiction to decide a dispute involving meter reading or excess billing which are covered under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885.

Section 3 of the C.P. Act lays down that the provisions of the said Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In other words, the C.P. Act gives the consumer an additional remedy besides those which may be available under other existing laws. The fact that disputes involving; meter reading or e