IMPORTANT POINT
The provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 do not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The 1st petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and Rules framed thereunder and the 2nd petitioner is its President. It is contended that the Society is formed for the welfare of Life Insurance Agents and the area of operation is entire Thrissur District.

2. According to the petitioners, one Geethakumary was managing the affairs of the Society and had misappropriated the entire money and deposits of the Society to a tune of Rs. 3,69,90,208/-. Based on the complaint of the petitioners, FIR was lodged in Crime No. 1846 of 2015.

3. While so, the respondents 1 and 2 filed complaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur alleging that they made a deposit of Rs. 2,50,000 on 21.1.2015 and since the majority amount has not been paid, there is deficiency in service. Acting on the complaints, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, on 30.4.2018 passed orders in C.C. No. 690 of 2016 and C.C. No. 685 of 2016 (Exts.P4 and P5) allowing their complaints. It is challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur that the petitioners have approached this Court with this writ petition.

4. According to the petitioners, since it is a Co-operative Society and thus it is taken out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, complaints filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents were not maintainable and accordingly, the consequential orders passed as Exts.P4 and P5 are not sustainable and are without jurisdiction.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is contented that their complaints were perfectly maintainable and that they fell within the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is also contended that under Clause (e) of Section 2, which defines “Consumer Disputes” the complaints were perfectly maintainable.

6. I have heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. R.S. Kalkura, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

7. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that since the orders passed by the Consumer Forum under Exts.P4 and P5 are without jurisdiction, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has ample powers to interfere with the said proceedings. According to him, the petitioner being a co-operative Society, the respondents 1 and 2 must resort to the mechanism available under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules made thereunder. In other words, it is the specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioners in view of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. Shri P.C. Sasidharan further contends that the respondents 1 and 2 are not consumers of the petitioner Society and there is no service rendered by them to the respondents and hence the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent is clearly ousted. He further relies on the decision of the Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Secy, E & NF Railway Junior Coop. Credit Society Ltd Eastern Railway vs. Jyothish Chandra Sarkar, 2024 SCC Online Cal. 1668, in support of the his contentions.

8. On the other hand, Sri R.S. Kalkura, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that since the petitioner-Society has not invoked the alternative remedy under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. At any rate, according to the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the remedy under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 are supplemental to each other and, hence, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.

9. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar.

10. The prime question that falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the provisions of the Kerala Co-