The Consumer Court has jurisdiction to decide disputes related to possession and service deficiencies under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Raghunath Prasad, Member—All these four appeals have been filed by Sri Hanuman Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited, Bahraich through its Secretary against Smt. Anandi Chaudhari under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) against judgments and orders dated 22.2.1996 passed by District Forum, Bahraich in Complaint Case Nos. 69/1995, 70/1995, 71/1995 and 72/1995. Since all these four cases are common in nature and were so appropriately decided by a common judgment and the arguments raised and points to be decided are common, it is thought proper to decide all these cases together by a common judgment.

2. The facts of the cases are that the appellant formed a Sahkari Avas Samiti in the name of Sri Hanuman Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited and lured persons to purchase plots from the aforesaid Sahkari Avas Samiti. The complainant, being a lady, fell a prey in the allurements of the appellant and purchased four plots bearing Gata Nos. 175, 175M and 176 by paying the entire cost. However, the possession has not been delivered so far.

3. The opposite party contested the case and stated that the Forum does not have jurisdiction to decide the complaints.

4. The learned District Forum passed the impugned judgments and orders. The Forum directed the opposite party to hand over possession of the plots to the complainant within 30 days. The Forum also directed for paying compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each in different complaints.

Aggrieved the opposite party has come in appeals. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. following points are to be decided:

(i) Whether the complaint is time-barred by limitation?

(ii) Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of Section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Society Act and thirdly the complaint is not maintainable as issue of possession is involved which can be properly decided by Civil Court and fourthly as to whether the order on merit is liable to be sustained. In the instant cases four sale deeds in the name of the complainant were executed in the year 1989 and the complaint was filed in May 1995. It is clear that in the instant cases the complainant has been knocking the doors of the appellant althrough, but inspite of execution of sale deed, possession was not delivered. Obviously in view of these facts the complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation and more so the limitation does not extinguish but only bars the remedy. The interest of justice will be defeated in case this technical plea is accepted and more so these complaints have been filed only on the specific denial of handing over the possession by the appellant.

5. Section 70 of the U.P. Co-operative Act proves that any nature of dispute between the Cooperative Society and the member will be sent to Registrar, Co-operative Societies for arbitration and no Court will have jurisdiction to decide it. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act makes it amply clear that if there is any consumer dispute between the parties, it can appropriately be decided only by the Consumer Courts. Even in the case decided by Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 24263 of 1994, the plea of the Co-operative Society was not accepted by the Hon’ble High Court and it was held that the provisions of Section 70 shall not be carried in the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act. More so, no complicated questions of law is involved. The sale deeds were executed for consideration, the possession was to be handed over by the seller which in the instant cases have not been done and that is a deficiency in service.

6. The finding thus so recorded by the learned District Forum are reasoned findings and they need no interference. Consequently, all the appeals fail.

7. All the appeals are dismissed and the judgments and order of the learned District Forum are upheld. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to the costs.

Let original copy of the judgment and order be kept on the records of Appeal No. 448