JYOTI P.JANI,MEMBER - (1.) ALL these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order rendered by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City (Addl.), Ahmedabad in Complaint Nos. 193 of 2003, 194 of 2003, 195 of 2003, 256 of 2003, 257 of 2003, 438 of 2003,439 of 2003, 440 of 2003, 441 of 2003, 442 of 2003, 443 of 2003, 513 of 2003 and 514 of 2003. Since facts involved in all these appeals are common and they arise from a common judgment and order, we have heard the appeals together and dispose them of by a common order. Appellants are the original opponents and respondents are the original complainants. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these appeals are addressed as appellants and complainants. (a) Short facts of the case of the complainants are that the complainants are members of the SAC Consumer Coop. Stores Limited. According to them, they have deposited various amounts at different times as particularized hereunder: (b) Upon request for refund of the deposited amount, the complainants were partly paid from the amount deposited. In spite of repeated demands, remaining amounts were not paid. According to the complainants, there is misappropriation of the amount deposited by them. The complainants have therefore filed complaints as stated above before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (City), Ahmedabad for the recovery of the remaining amount with interest, cost and compensation. The City Forum, after hearing the parties disposed of the complaints as stated above which gave rise to filing of the present appeals. Mr. Nilay Dave, learned Advocate appears for the appellants. On going through the Rojkam, it transpires that initially some of the complainants used to appear before the Commission as party in person. Subsequently they started remaining absent on several adjournments. Therefore, notice was issued upon the complainants. Still, however, the complainants chose not to remain present. We therefore heard Mr. Dave. We have also perused the order passed by the Forum, memos of appeals and the documents on record. Mr. Dave has argued that SAC Consumer Cooperative Stores Limited is registered under the Societies Act and the complainants are the members of the said Society. Hence, for resolution of any dispute between the society and its members, complainants being members of the society should file complaint under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, Board of Nominees Court only has power and jurisdiction and since the Forum heard the complaints and decided the same, order rendered by the Forum requires to be quashed and set aside as the Forum had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaints.
(2.) FOR dealing with the above arguments, Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is required to be considered. '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'. Consumer Courts have jurisdiction to try and entertain such complaints in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agriculture Society v. M. Lalia reported in, I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC) :, I (2004) SLT 200 :, 2004 (1) SC 305 in which it has been held that, "Cooperative Societies Act does not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to adjudicate upon dispute between members and Cooperative Society. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully having to the additional extended jurisdiction conferred under Section 3".
(3.) IT is the say of the learned Advocate for the appellants that as and when cheques were received for depositing, they were duly deposited in the bank. It was in the year 2001 the appellants came to know about the scandal made by earlier office bearers with the funds of the Stores and books of accounts. A complaint was made by the Appellants before the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies where inquiry was conducted and report and recovery certificate obtained from the District Registrar, The earlier office bearers were held guilty for misappropriation of the funds. On the basis of said report an execution application was filed against the earlier office bearers by the present appellants. The earlier office bearers filed an appeal before the Gujarat Cooperative Tribunal and the execution filed by the appellants was stayed by the Tribunal and since then the appeal is lying sine die. It is further argued that the City Forum in its order has referred to the execution petition and also the report under Section 93 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 but has wrongly considered that there is no nexus between the report, execution application and the complaints filed by the complainants and the order was passed in favour of the complainants which is required to be set aside. Complainants have deposited different amounts as fixed deposits with the SAC Consumer Cooperative Store, As per the record, 25% of the FD amounts were paid back by the Cooperative store to the complainants and for remaining 75% an order was passed by the Forum in favour of the complainants. The only point to be decided by this Commission is whether the office bearers/Committee members can be held responsible for the deposits made with SAC Consumer Coop. Stores Ltd. for which reliance has been placed by appellants' Advocate on following decisions. 1. Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Limited v. New Jash Park Cooperative Hsg. Society and Ors. reported in, 2004 (4) GLR 3572. 2. Someshwar Swamy Van Devastanam v. Dasara Suryanarayana and Ors. reported in : AIR 2004 AP 223. 3. Kundan Lal Sharma v. Col. H.S. Boparae and Anr., reported in : IV (2007) CPJ 169 (NC). 4. Arvindbha L. Ghayal v. Jyotiben D. Biskitwala and Ors. rendered in Appeal No. 355 of 2006 by Gujarat State Commission.;