Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Revision is directed against the Order of the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas dated 20-05-2016 passed in C.C. No. 660/2015.

Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Revision are that the Respondent/Complainant entered into an agreement with the Revisionist/OP for the purpose of installation of a Lift at the scheduled premises.  However, allegedly the Revisionist/OP did not install the Lift within the scheduled time compelling the Respondent/Complainant to file the instant complaint before the Ld. District Forum.

It is stated that challenging maintainability of the instant complaint, the Revisionist/OP filed a petition before the Ld. District Forum.  However, its petition was rejected by the Ld. District Forum vide its impugned order.  Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the rejection of its maintainability petition, the Revisionist/OP preferred this Revision.

It is the case of the Revisionist/OP that as per Sec. 102 (1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006, any dispute concerning the management or business or affairs of a Co-operative Society other than 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 the Co-operative Society against its paid employees regarding the terms and conditions of service is required to be filed before the Registrar for settlement.  It is, thus, inferred by the Revisionist/OP that the dispute related to management or business or affairs of the Co-operative Society needs to be filed before the Registrar for settlement.  Therefore, the present case is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora.

On the other hand,  it is the case of the Respondent/Complainant that the dispute between the Revisionist/OP and the Respondent/Complainant is neither relating to the management of the Co-operative Society nor business or affairs of the Co-Operative Society as because installation of lift is not the business or affairs of a Co-Operative Society, but it is the business of the Revisionist/OP which is a Private Limited Company  and the Respondent/OP only agreed to consume/avail of its service against the consideration partly paid and by not installing the Lift the Revisionist/OP caused gross deficiency in service.  As such, there is no infirmity with the  impugned order.

We have heard the contentions of both sides and perused the material on record.

On a reference to the Sec. 102(1) of the W.B.Co-Operative Societies Act, 2006 we find that dispute concerning the management or business or affairs of a Co-operative Society has to be filed before the Registrar for settlement if it arises between a Co-operative society and any person having transaction with it. 

Although it is asserted by the Respondent/Complainant that installation of lift is not the business or affairs of a Co-Operative Society, and as such there is no need to refer the matter to the Registrar of Co-operative Society, we however feel otherwise.  On a deeper thought it appears to us that whenever dispute arises between a Co-operative Society and the contractor over non-installation of Lift in respect of the suit property, the dispute certainly concerns the affairs of the said Co-operative Society.  We derive at such conclusion relying upon the decision of a Special Bench of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of Anjan Choudhury Vs. Anandaneer Co-operative Registered Housing Society, reported in AIR 1990 Calcutta 380, wherein it was held that even the dispute between a Cooperative Society and its seller arising out of enforcement of a contract for sale, when the Cooperative Society failed to obtain a conveyance from its seller, is a dispute which is referable to the Registrar of the Cooperative Society for its resolution and not before the Civil Court by virtue of the provision of Section 86 of the old Act and Section 95 of the new Act. As a matter of fact, the provision contained in Section 95 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 is pari materia with the provision contained in Section 102 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006.

As such, we have no qualms holding that the dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent Cooperative Society concerns the affairs of the latter and such dispute falls within the meaning of dispute u/s 4(25) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006.  Thus, it is a fit case for resolution by the Registrar in terms of the provision of Section 102 of the said Act. Needless to say, therefore, in view of the provision of Section 102 (4) of the said Act, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute.

It is thus seen that the Ld. District Forum erred in exercising its jurisdiction in a prudent manner.  The instant Revision is allowed.  The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside.  Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed for want of jurisdiction.