State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chetram vs Adarsh Nagar U P Samiti on 26 April, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2010/270 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Chetram a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Adarsh Nagar U P Samiti a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Gobardhan Yadav MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 26 Apr 2017 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No. 270 of 2010 1- Chet Ram s/o Sh. Ratan Lal, R/o 62-D-1, Railway Colony, Tuglakabad, New Delhi. 2- Nanak Singh s/o Sh. Kanahya Lal, R/o 15-C, Railway Colony, Tuglakabad, New Delhi at present 54-D, Railway Colony, Tuglakabad, New Delhi. 3- Km. Seema Sharma D/o Sh. Jagar Ram, R/o 22-A, Railway Colony, Tuglakabad, New Delhi. 4- Shyam Lal s/o Sh. Bhushan, R/o 3151/C, Dharampura, Gali no.4, Kailash Nagar, Delhi. 5- Smt. Sudesh Kumari w/o Late Sh. Gopal Dass Chhabra, Dinesh Kumar, Hemant Kumar Sons of Late Sh. Gopal Dass Chhabra, R/o F-16, Vishwakarma Colony, M.B. Road, New Delhi. 6- Har Bhagawan Dass Gosain s/o Sh. Chandu Ram, R/o 257-258, DDA Janta Flats, Pul Prehladpur, Suraj Kund Road, New Delhi. 7- Bhikamber Singh s/o Sh. Rit Ram, R/o 15-H, Railway Colony, Tuglakabad, New Delhi at present H.No.534, Rajeev Nagar, Near K.S. Memorial School, Distt. Palwal (Haryana) Since deceased. 7/1- Smt. Satyawati w/o Bhikamber Singh, R/o H.No.86, Maugroli, Tehsil Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) 7/2- Sanjeev Sharma, Son, R/o H.No.86, Maugroli, Tehsil Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) 7/3- Neeraj Sharma, Son, R/o H.No.86, Maugroli, Tehsil Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) 7/4- Smt. Sawita w/o Raj Kumar, Daughter, R/o H.No.83, Munnatago, Tehsil Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) 7/5- Smt. Sunita w/o Sunil, Daughter, R/o H.No.83, Munnatago, Tehsil Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) 7/6- Smt. Vijai Sharma w/o Shri Sanjai, Daughter, R/o H.No.574, Khatriwada-4, Sikandarabad. 7/7- Smt. Maneesha w/o Sandeep, Daughter, R/o H.No.22, Bammkhera, Palwal Haryana. (2) 8- Ramesh Kumar Singhal s/o Sh. Shiv Charan, R/o 141, Shyam Colony, Near Pathwadi Mandir, Ballahgarh. 9- Smt. Swaran Kaur s/o Late Preetam Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Kuldip Singh, Harbinder Singh S/o Late Preetam Singh, R/o 58-G, Plcket-4, Phase-1, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-110091 10- Shyam Sunder Sehgal s/o Sh. Ram Lubhaya, R/o G-11, Mohan Garden, Rama Parak, New Delhi at present 1- Block, H.No. 49-50, Mohan Garden, Delhi. 11- Chatar Singh s/o Sh. Teeka Ram, R/o Qtr. No.21-A, Railway Colony, Tuglakabad, New Delhi. 12- Rohtash Singh s/o Sh. Kanhaya Lal, R/o 15-C, Railway Colony, Tuglakabad, New Delhi at present F-50, Vishwakarma Colony, M.B. Road, New Delhi-110044 13- Devendra Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Gyan Chand, Bahichi Alauddin, Multani Dhanda House No.10402/4, New Delhi at present H. No.65, 1st floor Gali no.2, Srinagar Sakurbasit, New Delhi. ....Appellants. Versus 1- Adarsh Nagar Pragatisheel Sehkari Greh Nirman Samiti Ltd. A-636-S, Sector-11, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad through its Secretary Mahipal Singh, R/o G-276, Pratap Vihar, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. 2- G.K. Kulsherestha Active Secretary, A.N.P.S.G.N. Samiti Ltd., R/o 190, Sector-12, Railway Enclave Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad. 3- Harish Chand Gola, Treasurer, A.N.P.S.G.N. Samiti Ltd., R/o 178, Sector-11, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. ....Respondents. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Govardhan Yadav, Member. Sri Keshav Tyagi, counsel for the appellants. Sri S.K. Sharma, counsel for the respondents. (3) Date 19.7.2017 JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member) The instant appeal was filed by 13 appellants/ complainants against the order dated 5.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum in complaints no.1028/1998, 1032/1998, 1033/1998, 1034/1998, 1035/1998, 1036/1998, 1037/1998, 1038/1998, 1040/1998, 1041/1998, 1042/1998, 1043/1998 and 1044/1998.
The appellants have filed written arguments wherein they have made prayer for treating the instant appeal as revision under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the ground that the Forum had dismissed the complaints on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputes relating to cooperative societies and therefore, had not exercised the power vested in it by law.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, we find that the complaints have been dismissed by the Forum below on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to decide the case. The Forum below has not entered into the merits of the cases but has concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the cases relating to cooperative societies. So as the complaints have been dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, therefore, as per section 17(1)(b) a revision could be filed against the order where the Forum "has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity". So in the instant case also (4) the complaints have been dismissed by the Forum below on the ground of not having the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. Therefore, there is involvement of element of lack of jurisdiction or not exercising the jurisdiction so vested in it that the matter could be looked into in a revision, therefore, there is sufficient reason to treat the appeal as a revision and accordingly, this appeal is to be dealt with as a revision. So now it to be seen as to whether the Forum below had had the jurisdiction or not and the consequences thereof.
Now, we come to the brief facts relating to this revision which in short are that 15 complaints were filed by different complainants in the District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad mainly on the ground that the respondents Adarsh Nagar Pragatisheel Sehkari Greh Nirman Samiti Ltd. and the officials thereof had floated a scheme as Anchal Vihar Avasiya Yojna in the District Ghaziabad where certain plots were to be allotted on the costs fixed by them wherein the complainants deposited different sums for allotment of plots and even though the complainants had made payment of costs of the plots yet they were not given possession of the plots. Therefore, the complainants asked for the refund of the amount with interest but the same was not refunded hence, 15 complaints were filed in the District Consumer Forum wherein the respondents/OPs filed their WS mentioning therein that the complaints were barred by time besides some of the complainants were given the possession of the plots which were purchased by them through registered (5) sale-deed and some other had not paid the balance amount. In some of the cases, it was the stand of the OP that the land of the OP was acquired by the Government but the compensation has not been received by them and it was the stand of the OP that the case pertaining to the business of the cooperative societies and the Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Forum below passed the impugned order on 5.12.2009 dismissing the complaints on the ground that the Forum below did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the cases pertaining to the cooperative societies.
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that a review petition was filed in the Forum below which was also dismissed vide order passed on 25.1.2010.
Feeling aggrieved with the order passed on 5.12.2009, this appeal was filed which is now being entertained as revision.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.
It is the case of the complainants that the respondents Adarsh Nagar Pragatisheel Sehkari Greh Nirman Samiti Ltd. and its secretary and members had floated the Anchal Vihar Scheme for providing plots where the complaints had applied for allotment of plots for which they also paid the costs but the possession of the plots were not given.
The respondents/OPs had raised objections that since it was a matter pertaining to cooperative societies (6) therefore, the Forum below had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. In this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the respondents that as per section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the case was not maintainable as the Forum did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the cases pertaining to the disputes with the cooperative societies, the matter was referred to the Registrar and no court had any jurisdiction to deal with the disputes as per section 70 of the aforesaid Act.
On the contrary, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the revisionists that as per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the act is not in derogation of any other law but the provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law and on the basis of the aforesaid provisions of section 3, the remedy was available under the Consumer Protection Act and section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act did not act as bar to the filing of the complaints in the Forum below. Ld. Forum has relied upon the ruling filed by the respondents 1995 CPJ p-3 (SC) and 2009 (77) p-302 (SC) wherein it was held, as contained in the body of the impugned judgment, that in case of a dispute pertaining to the Registrar Cooperative Societies and being referred to Registrar, the case was not maintainable in the District Consumer Forum but in this regard, the revisionists have referred Civil Appeal no.92 of 1998 decided on 11.12.2003 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"Consumer Protection Act was enacted to provide better protection to the interest of the consumer and for that purpose cheaper easier redressal is made available to (7) the consumers through quasi judicial forums- As per the provisions of the Act, they apply in addition to the other provisions available under other enactments, so therefore, additional jurisdiction is conferred on the forum and not their exclusion- Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, one has to see the sufficiency of the remedies available under the Act- Merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the members and the management of the society under Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and forums provided cannot take away and exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the forums under the Consumer Protection Act expressly and intentionally to serve a definite cause in terms of the objects and reasons of the Act- Case remanded to State Commission for their adjudication".
The revisionists have referred another ruling Civil Appeal no.36 of 2003 decided on 29.4.2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"At the outset, it is fairly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the question of jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain and try complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 9for short the 'Act') when there is a Bar under the Cooperative Societies Act to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain any dispute between the Cooperative Society and its members, is no more res-integra. In Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs. and Ors. MANU/SC/1025/2003: AIR 2004 SC 448, while dealing with the similar issue with reference to Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Act it has been held by this Court that the remedy available to an aggrieved party under the Act being much wider in its scope, Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to adjudicate upon disputes between the members and the Cooperative Society under the said Act".
On the basis of the aforesaid rulings, it is abundantly clear that with regard to the jurisdiction in the matters (8) pertaining to the Cooperative Societies and the provisions barring the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Cooperative Societies Act ousting the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the bar does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate upon the disputes between the members of the Cooperative Societies. So, on the basis of the aforesaid rulings, it is abundantly clear that with regard to the disputes pertaining to the Cooperative Societies that Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act does not bar or oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and as the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law and therefore, it can not be said that the disputes pertaining to the cooperative societies could not be dealt with by the Forum below and therefore, the conclusion drawn in this regard by the Forum below is having manifest error and there is material irregularity as also illegality in holding that the disputes between the revisionists and respondents could not be dealt with by the Forum below. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the cases deserve to be remanded back to the Forum below.
ORDER The revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with regard to the revisionists. The cases are remanded back to the Forum below for deciding in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously.
(9)The parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 21.8.2017.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Govardhan Yadav) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA-II Court No.4 [HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Gobardhan Yadav] MEMBER