Date – 04.03.2022

SRI  SWADES  RANJAN  RAY

                                 President

Facts of this case, in short, is that on 06.03.2019, Complainant had booked two rooms of Holiday home (situated at Haridwar, Manasarover International, Upper Road, Moti Bazar, Haridwar-249401) from the Opposite Parties for six days commencing on and from 06.06.2019 (12 noon) to 12.06.2019 (12 noon) and made payment of ₹6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only).

That unfortunately due to some unavoidable circumstances, Complainant cancelled the above noted booking made a prayer for refunding the booking amount i.e. ₹6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only).  Opposite Parties cancelled the booking but refused to return the booking money.

Hence, this case,

Opposite Parties/Allahabad Bank Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. appeared and contested this case by filing written version.  In written Version Opposite Parties denied all the material allegations made by the Complainant and stated that the Complainant booked the two rooms of holiday home for six days from 06.06.2019 to 12.06.2019 for an amount of ₹6,000/- only per day.  Complainant willingly cancelled the booking due to his personal problem.  As per rule of the Opposite Parties, there is no provision for returning the booking money.  But there is a provision for rebooking of the same day with extra charge of ₹50/- each.  Complainant rebooking for 2 days but without availing the same, made a prayer for refunding the remaining booking money. 

As there is no provision for refunding the booking money, so this complaint case liable to be dismissed.

Points for decision

                                     I. Whether Complainant has any cause of action to file this case or not?

                                    II. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties or not?

                                   III. Whether Complainant will entitle to get any relief / reliefs as prayed for or not?

Decision with reason

All these points are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity.

I have carefully perused the petition of complaint, Written Version, and Brief Note on Argument (BNA).  The only case of the Complainant is that he booked a holiday home of the Opposite Parties @ ₹6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) for six (6) days on and from 06.06.2019 (noon) to 12.06.2019 (noon).  But due to some reason Complainant unable to avail the holiday home and prays for return of ₹6,000/- for that purpose as per rules, Complainant again booked the same holiday home for one (1) day @ ₹1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only).  In doing so Complainant claimed money of ₹6,000/- and hence filed this case.

Ld. Advocate Mr. Saikat Mali submits that Complainant files this case with an ulterior motive and misinterpreted the general guidelines of the Opposite Parties.

Ld. Advocate further refer the Rule 6 of the general guideline wherein it is mentioned that :

“In cancellation, contribution is refundable in case of re-booking and in that case ₹50/- charge extra as handling charge for each and every bill”.

In this case Complainant re-booked for 1 day but he did not avail the booking.  According to this terms and condition, Complainant has to re-book the same amount and same days. But here Complainant booked only for one (1) day by misinterpreting the guideline and in Rule 6 booking is ‘not transferable’.

So, I also agree with the view that the intension of the Complainant is not fair but somehow to return the money by using unlawful means.  Ld. Advocate further submits that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter related to co-operative society.

In this regard, Ld. Advocate refers Sec 102 (4) wherein there is a express bar to entertain the matter related to Co-operative Societies Act.

Section 102(4) of West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 states:

“Any Civil Court or any consumers’ Disputes Redressal Forum shall not have any jurisdiction to try any dispute as mentioned in sub-section (1)”.

Hence, in Civil Court or in Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall not have any jurisdiction to try any dispute as mentioned in Sub Section 102 (4) of W.B. Co-operative Societies Act, 2006.

Section 102 (1) of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 deals:

“Any dispute concerning the management or business or affairs of a co-operative society other than the dispute relating to election in a co-operative society as and when such election is conducted by the Co-operative Election Commission and disciplinary action taken by Co-operative society against its plaid employees regarding the terms and conditions of the service shall be filed before the Registrar for settlement……………”

In support of his Ld. Advocate refer WP No. 7186(W) of 2018 wherein, Honb’ble Calcutta High Court hold that “the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with any dispute regarding Co-operative Societies Act.”

Considering the above finding and rely of the above reference, I hold that this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with this complaint case under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Hence, Complainant has no cause of action to file this case and there is no deficiency in service U/S 2(11) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the part of the Opposite Parties.

All the points disposed of accordingly.

In the result, this complaint case fails.

Court Fee paid correct.

Hence, it is

                                       O R D E R E D

that the Complaint Case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Parties.

No order as to cost.

Hence, this complaint case is disposed of accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to all the parties at free of cost.