Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: CPA in Smt. Kalawati & Ors. vs M/S. United Vaish Co-Operative Thirft & ... on 26 September, 2001Matching Fragments
Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum respondent filed appeal before the State Commission which, as stated above, was allowed and the order of the District Forum was set aside and complaints dismissed. Two contentions were raised on the basis of which the appeal was allowed;
(i) that a Forum under the CPA has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaints in view of the provisions of Section 60 read with Section 93 of the Societies Act and
(ii) petitioners were not consumers availing of services as defined under the CPA. Section 60 of the Societies Act specifies the disputes which could be referred to arbitration under that Act by the Registrar of the Societies. It is not necessary for us to go into the question if the dispute raised by the petitioners did fall under Section 60 of Societies Act as for the purpose of decision of the questions raised we will accept that the dispute did fall within the purview of Section 60 and as so held by the State Commission. Then come the crucial question if Section 93 of the Societies Act bars the jurisdiction of the District Forum under CPA.
Section 3 of CPA provides 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.
Section 3 is worded in widest terms and leaves no one in doubt that the provisions of CPA shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Thus even if any other Act provides for any remedy to a litigant for redressal of that remedy a litigant can go to District Forum if he is a consumer under CPA. That remedy exists in any other law which creates the right is no bar to District Forum assuming jurisdiction.
In the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Ramji Enterprises & Anr. (First Appeal No.411 of 1996) we have already held that in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, District Forum established under the CPA will have no jurisdictions over the matters covered under Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Section 3 of the CPA is to be read in consonance with the provisions barring jurisdiction of a Court or other tribunals absolutely. If a District Forum assumes jurisdiction in respect of matter falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of Tribunals established under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 or the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or similar other enactments that would certainly be in derogation of those provisions which is not permissible. We may also refer to a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. GO Go Garments - (1998) 3 SCC 247 where the Supreme Court said with reference to Section 3 of CPA that Contract Act would nevertheless apply to the complaints filed under CPA and that Section 3 could not mean to say that it overrides other provisions of law.
A co-operative society under the Societies Act, is a akin to a company under the companies Act, 1986.
If we refer to Section 35 of the Societies Act, a cooperative society is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal, and with power to hold property, enter into contract, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted. A co-operative society is not bound by the rigors of the Companies Act. Under Section 4 of the Societies Act a society which has its objects the promotion of the economic interests of its members in accordance with co-operative principles may be registered under the Act. A member of the society cannot exercise rights as a member unless he has made due payment as required by the bylaws of the society. A member has a right of one vote in the affairs of the society. It is apparent that rights of a member in a society are similar to rights which a shareholder exercises in a company. Rights of a shareholder are: (i) to elect directors and thus to participate in the management of the affairs of the company, (ii) to vote on resolutions at the meeting of the company and (iii) to enjoy the profits of the company in the shape of dividends. A share holder is different person than the company of which he is the shareholder. Similarly, a member of the society is different from the society of which he is a member. He can certainly if occasion arises, proceed against the society raising a dispute. In the Case of Neela Vasant Raje vs. Amogh Industries & Anr. - 1986-95 Consumer 446 this Commission had taken a view that with reference to Section 2(1)(d) of CPA that where a company or a firm invites deposits from the public for the purpose of using money for its business on promise of giving attractive rates of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment of the principal after the stipulated term the transaction of such a nature would clearly make the depositor a consumer under CPA.