KALAWATI Vs. UNITEDVAISH CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State Commission on appeal filed by the respondent-opposite party set aside the order of the District Forum holding that the petitioners- complainants were not consumers within the meaning of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'CPA') on their being the members of the opposite party, a society registered under the Delhi Co- operative Societies Act, 1972 (for short 'Societies Act'). It was also held that in view of Section 93 of Societies Act, Consumer Forum would have no jurisdiction in respect of those disputes as enumerated in Section 60 of the said Act,

(2.) Complainants are now the petitioners before us and the opposite party is respondent. Petitioners had deposited various amounts as fixed deposit receipts with the respondent which amounts were to be payable to them on maturity with interest at the agreed rate. Respondent defaulted in making payment of the fixed deposit receipts after they matured. Complaining deficiency in service petitioners approached the District Forum. Complaints were allowed by the District Forum and directions were issued to the respondent to refund the amounts of the fixed deposit receipts with interest due to each of the petitioners at the time of maturity and thereafter pay interest @ 18% per annum till payment.

(3.) 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 complaint 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 liased we will accept that the dispute did fall within the purview of Section 60 and as so held by the State Commission. Then comes 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."