D.R. VithaI Rao, President. - The complainant - the Consumer Citizens Forum Raichur, on behalf of 7 persons, the members of the opposite party - Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., Employees Co-operative Housing Society ltd., made the complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-society in not providing the house sites as promised and collected the money from the 7 complainants for allotting the sites and claimed compensation from the opposite party-society for this act of deficiency of service by the opposite party-society.

2. The opposite party-society filed its version and averred that the grievances made by the complainant were regarding the business of the opposite party-society and so the complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was untenable as per the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

3. The averments made at para 3 of the objection statements filed by the opposite party, read as under:

"3. Admittedly, the 7 persons on whose behalf the complaint has been filed are members of the, respondent-society which is, a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. A reading of the averments contained in the complaint clearly disclose that the same touches the businesses of the respondent's society. In that view of the matter, respondent respectfully submits that this Hon'ble commission has/no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and tl1e same is barred under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-op. Societies Act. Even otherwise, it is submitted that 7 persons whose cause the complainant seeks to espouse are not consumers and the averments contained in the complaint do not constitute defects or deficiency. On this ground also, the complete, is liable to be dismissed in limine."

4. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the dispute raised and grievance made by the complainant is one touching the business of the co-operative society and is between the society and its members and so such a dispute and its complaint is entertain able only by the Registrar of Co-op. Societies for its decision.

5. The learned counsel for the opposite party referred to the provisions of section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and also relied upon the decision in the Union of India and another v. India Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, reported in A .I.R. 1966. S.C. Page 35, and submitted that the redressal Forums under the Act have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such question and so the 'complaint' is untenable.

6. 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."

7. This would go to show that the provisions of the C.P. Act, are in addition to, and no 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.

8. 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.

9. The National Commission, in District Manager, Telephones, Patna and another v. Dr. Tarun Bharduar and another, reported in Volume - 1(1991) CPR page 171, while considering the provisions of Section 7- B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, observed at para 5, as under:

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