IMPORTANT POINT
Fora below exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, Commission has power to set aside impugned order under revisional jurisdiction.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—All these revision petitions arise out of common order of State Commission involving similar facts and question of law, hence, decided by common order.

2. These revision petitions have been filed by petitioner against order dated 4.6.2008 passed by State Commission in FA No. 1265 of 2003 in Consumer Complaint Nos. 430 to 450 of 2002- Hanuman Sahakari Pani Purvatha Sanshta Maryadit & Ors. v. Ramchandra Bapuso Khade & Ors. by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing all complaints was upheld.

3. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents became members of Society-Opposite Party No.1/Petitioner No.1 for getting water supply for their land. Opposite Party No.2/Petitioner No.2 is Chairman, Opposite party No.3Vice Chairman and Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 12 Petitioner Nos. 3 to 11 are Directors and Opposite Party No. 13 is Secretary of the said Society. Complainants mortgaged their lands to the land development Bank for raising loan for the formation of society and execution commissioning, and erection of irrigation Scheme for the purpose of providing water supply and accordingly the land development Bank have given finance for making the irrigations scheme operational in the form of loan to the Respondent Society. The said Scheme became operational in the year 2000 and despite the complainant made repeated oral as well as written request to the OP, they did not provide water supply to the complainants land, and therefore complainants could not take sugarcane crop in their respective land as the result of which they have suffered financial loss. The complainants mortgaged their lands and raised loans for the irrigations scheme of the OP to get water supply and due to non-supply of the water by the OP society, the complainant have suffered financial loss and therefore they are unable to refund the loan instalments to the land development Bank. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainants filed separate complaints before District Forum. Opposite Parties resisted complaints and submitted that complainants have mortgaged their lands to land development Bank for raising loan for the execution commissioning and erection of the water irrigation scheme. They have also stated that the complainants are the members of the Respondents society. However, they have harped on the non-compliance of the rules and bylaws of the society for the water supply by the complainants and hence due to such a non-compliance water supply could not made to them. They have also stated that OP society had sent intimation letter to the complainants on 26.7.2002 informing them to fill-up the printed form and comply with the rules and bylaws of the society and then only they shall be entitled to get the water. Similarly, the OP in their submission have stated that the complainants in the year 1998 had submitted written complaints to the D.D.R. Cooperative Society Kolhapur that since they have not received water supply on that date and hence do not wish to take the water supply from the OP and hence their lands be made emcumbrance free from any mortgage. The same Application given to the OP society and hence the complainants cannot claim the water supply. The OP(s) have further stated that due to political rivalry between the complainant and the OP and with view to cause harassment to the OP, the complainants have not taken the water supply from the irrigations scheme. On the contrary the complainants have tried to create problems in the functioning of the OP society. The OP(s) have also raised the point of maintainability of the complaint before these Forums. The Cooperative Court and similarly situated offices are the only competent Forums to decide the dispute between the parties as it is dispute touching the business of the society and they have submitted that this Forum have no jurisdiction to try the dispute. They have also stated that the complaint is expressly barred b