KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT. VS NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President;
Mrs. Saroj Rajwade & Mr. N.K. Vaidya, Members
KARMACHARI GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MYDT.—Appellant
versus
NIRANJAN LAL MEHAR & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal Nos. 494 & 495 of 1995—Decided on 22.2.1999

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Deepesh Joshi, Advocate.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 14 - M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 64 - Complainant, members of appellant, Cooperative Housing Society, deposited amount for allotment of plot - Plot not allotted - Claim for refund of amount - Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Since dispute related to deficiency in service, provisions of Section 64 of Cooperative Societies Act would not be a bar to entertainment of complaint - Dist. Forum committed no illegality in directing appellant to refund amount with interest at 18% - Complainant however held not entitled to cost.
       Held: From a bare reading of Subsection (1) of Section 64. it is clear that if any dispute touching the Constitution, management or business of a society or the liquidation of the society shall be referred to Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties belong to the categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-section (1) of section 64, the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court would be barred under Section 82 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The disputes which are not covered under sub-section (I) of Section 64, the jurisdiction would not be barred. In the case in hand the dispute relates to deficiency in service falling within the ambit of section 2 (1) (g) and (0) of the Act. Such a dispute is not covered under sub-section (1) of section 64 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. nor the Registrar on a reference being made under Section 64 can grant the relief for deficiency in service alleged against Cooperative Society. Moreover, Section 3 of the Act clearly lays down that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The Act gives the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under the existing laws in the present cases. M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, even for arguments sake even if the remedy is provided under Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act that would not be a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency constituted under the Act.
       Further held: In view of the above we respectfully agree with the view taken by this Commission in case of Ravindra Pathak. (supra) and hold that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum co-exists as an additional remedy in relation to deficiency in service and is not barred under Section 82 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act.
       As an upshot, we are of the view that the District Forum has not committed any illegality in directing the appellant/opposite party to refund the amount so deposited with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of deposit. However in the circumstances following the decision of National Commission in case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Smt. Veena Kakkar. II (1995) CPJ 43 (NC), we direct that complainants would not be entitled to costs throughout.
       Result: Appeal allowed partly.
       IMPORTANT POINT
       Where dispute raised by a member of Cooperative Group Housing Society relates to deficiency in service there jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to entertain complaint would not be barred by provisions of Cooperative Societies Act.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—Appeal No. 494/1995 arises out of the order dated 6.6.1995 passed in Case No. 201 of 1995 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (for short the ‘District Forum’). While the Appeal No. 495 of 1995 arises out of the order dated 8.6.1995 passed in Case No. 232 of 1995 by District Forum, Raipur. Both appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are thus : the opposite party/appellant is a housing co-operative society registered under M.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. Complainants in the two complaint cases are the members of the Society. The complainant Niranjanlal Mehar deposited Rs. 11,410/- in the year 1989 for the allotment of the plot, while the other complainant Ramesh Chandra Paul deposited Rs. 21,410/- for allotment of the plot but the Society did not allot the plot to the two complainants inspite of their best efforts for no fault of the complainants. Therefore, the complainants filed separate complaints. Niranjanlal filed Complaint No. 201 / 1995 and Ramesh Chandra Paul filed Complaint No. 232/1995 alleging deficiency in service and made a prayer for refund of the amount with interest and compensation. The complaints were resisted. The District Forum repelled the contention that the jurisdiction of the District Forum is barred in view of Section 82 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the remedy for complainants is to raise the dispute under Section 64 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. On merits, the deficiency in service was found, therefore, ordered the opposite party to refund the amount- deposited by the complainants with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of deposits.

3. Mr. S.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the M.P. Co- operative Societies Act is a special law, while the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) is a general law. The M.P. Co-operative Societies Act provides remedy in relation to disputes between the members and the Society to be raised under Section 64 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act before the Registrar of the Co- operative Societies. Against the order of the Registrar an appeal lies under Section 77(1) and a Second Appeal under Section 77(2) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction is exclusively barred in relation of the disputes falling within the ambit of Section 64. Counsel cited a decision of the National Commission in case of Dilip Bapat & Another v. Panchawati Co-operative Housing Society, I (1991) CPJ 462=1991 (1) CPR 277.

4. Mr. Deepesh Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent in Appeal No. 494/1995 contended that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide disputes in regard to services rendered by the Co-operative Society for consideration under the Act. He placed reliance on a decision rendered by this Commission in Appeal No. 335/1996, Ravindra Pathak v. Lokmanya Sahakari Grih Nirman Society Ltd., decided on 26.7.1997. by MPSCDRC

5. Section 82 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Courts in respect of the matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 82. The submission of Mr. Dwivedi, learned Counsel is that a dispute between a member and the Society is covered in Clause (c) which speaks of any dispute, required to be referred to the Registrar or his nominee or Board of nominees. Section 64 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act deals with the ‘Disputes’, which reads thus:

“64. Disputes—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Society or the liquidation of a Society shall be referred to the Registrar by any of the parties to the dispute if the parties thereto are among the following :

(a) a society, its committee, any past committee, any past

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

Cases Referred (7)

Judicial Analysis