Consumer Forum Not Competent To Decide Disputes Between Multi-State Co-Operative Society And Its Member: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court held that a Consumer Forum is not competent to decide a dispute between a multi state co-operative society and its member.
The complainant was a member of a multi-state co-operative society (Society). He had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) stating that even after paying back the loans he took from the society, the dues payable to the complainant were not disbursed.
The District Forum had directed the Society to pay compensation for harassment and mental injury towards the complainant. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Forum) affirmed the District Forum’s order.
The Society had argued that since it was registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (Special Act), any dispute touching the constitution, management, or business of the Society should have been referred to arbitration under Section 84 of the Special Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas observed, “In view of the above provision of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act that if there is a dispute between the members and the society it should be referred before the arbitrator. Both the forums did not consider the said statutory provisions and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalpaiguri has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.”
Advocate Kishore Mukherjee represented the petitioner.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan 2009(8) SCC 481 where it was held that a special law overrides a general law and a consumer forum cannot usurp power and jurisdiction to decide a matter if the same is conferred upon a special forum.
The Court remarked that the State Forum did not consider the specific provision of the Special Act regarding the disputes between the members and the Society which stated that disputes between the Society and its members should be referred before an Arbitrator. The Consumer Protection Act had no application, and both the Forums did not consider the statutory provisions.
The Court noted that the “multi State society is governed by the provisions of the Multi State Act. The remedy of arbitration provided under section 84 is a statutory and is binding on all parties.”
Section 84 of the Special Act stipulates that a dispute between both past and present members and the management, constitution or business of the Society should be referred to arbitration.
The Court explained that “in the impugned order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission…the question of jurisdiction of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to entertain the dispute in the teeth of arbitration clause under the Multi-State Co Operative Societies Act, 2002 has not been answered.”
Consequently, the Court held that due to the specific embargo created under the Special Act, the District Forum was not competent to pass any order and both the District and State Forum erred in law while entertaining the complaint.
The Court also clarified that the “order shall not be construed to preclude the complainant opposite party for approaching the appropriate forum for ventilation of his grievance.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application and set aside the order of both the Forums.
Cause Title: The Secretary, E & NF Railway Junior Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Eastern Railway v. Sri Jyotish Chandra Sarkar & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Kishore Mukherjee and Soumyajit Mukherjee