The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is not ousted by the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act in certain circumstances.

Mr. D. Karforma, Member—This is an appeal against the order dated 6.3.1999 passed by the District Forum, Nadia. The present appellant was the complainant before the Forum while the present respondent was the O.P.

2. From the impugned order it is observed that the Forum rejected the petition of the complainant at the preliminary stage on the ground that the case was not maintainable before the Forum. As the complaint was dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone, the merits of the case were not gone into by the Forum. Being aggrieved by that order, the complainant has come in appeal before the Commission.

3. We find from the impugned order that the Forum relied upon Section 95 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 wherein it has been enjoined that any dispute concerning the business of a co-operative society capable of being the subject of civil litigation shall be referred in the prescribed manner to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, if the parties thereto are, inter alia, any person having transaction with a co-operative society [vide Section 95(d) of the aforesaid Act]. Though in the impugned order it has not been specifically mentioned, we find that in Section 134 of the same Act it has been stipulated that no Civil Court or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction in regard to any dispute required to be referred to the Registrar under Section 95 [vide Section 134(2)(d)]. This provision apparently tends to support the decision of the Forum as stated above.

4. In the memo. of appeal the appellant has assailed the order of the Forum mainly on the following grounds:

(1) Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act states that the provisions of the C.P. Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The appellant contends that because of this enabling provision the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum cannot be ousted by the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act.

(2) As per Consumer Protection Act a complaint can be made against a “person” where the word “person” includes a co-operative society [vide Section 2(e) and Section 2(m) of the C.P. Act].

(3) The appellant further contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there is a clause for arbitration, the jurisdiction of the Forum cannot be taken away to decide such disputes.

5. In support of his contention the learned Lawyer for the appellant has filed several case laws which are as under:

(1) Order of Hon’ble National Commission dated 15.3.2002 in Revision Petition No. 1468 of 2001 [2002 N.C.J. 548 (N.C.)]

(2) Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 20.8.1996 [1996 (4) CTJ 749 (Supreme Court) (C.P.)].

(3) Order of the Maharashtra State Commission dated 31.1.1991 [I (1991) CPJ 462].

6. Out of the above case laws cited by the appellant the one which is most directly relevant for the present matter is the order passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1468 of 2001. In this order the National Commission has held that Section 3 of the C.P. Act has been worded in the widest terms and leaves no one in any doubt about the remedies under the C.P. Act, being in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, even if any other Act provides for any remedy to a litigant, but does not bar the jurisdiction of the Forum under the C.P. Act, it will be open to the litigant to go to District Forum or State Commission as the case may be and seek his remedy under the C.P. Act. The National Commission further held that the Fora under the C.P. Act are not Civil Courts even though they have the trappings of a Civil Court and the Legislature did not in its wisdom extend the bar to “other authority” and confined such oust of jurisdiction to Civil or Revenue Courts only. From the above provisions it is quite clear that the Legislature in the State of West Bengal wanted to bar the jurisdiction of any Civil or Revenue Court only