Ld. Advocate for the complainant files hazira. The complainant himself is present.

Today is fixed for admission hearing. The record is taken up for admission hearing and order.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant in full.

Perused the complaint and xerox copies of listed documents so filed by the complainant. It appears that the O.Ps are the Registrar Co-operative Society and the complainant has made transactions with the O.Ps by depositing the retirement benefit amounting to Rs.19,00,000/- approximately as fixed deposit. The complainant went to the O.P.No-1 for withdrawing the above noted amount of money. But the O.Ps did not pay any heed to the matter and ultimately the complainant could not withdraw his deposited money and he suffered huge loss of interest. The complainant also filed an application before the ARCS, Uttar Dinajpur Range at karnojora and he also made prayer before the O.P.No-1 for taking step in the matter of withdrawing the money but failed.

It is clear from this petition of complaint and xerox copies of documents that the matter is involved with the matter under the Co-operative Society Act. Section 102 (1) (d) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 provides that “ between two co operative society or between a co-operative society and a liquidator of another co operative or between liquidator or two different co operatives or between a co operative society and any person having transactions with it or between a co operative society and its financial bank and for this dispute the case is to be filed before the Registrar, Co operative Society. Registrar means including the Assistant Registrar given power by the Registrar. But Section 102 (4) of the said Act provides that “any civil court or any Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum shall not have any jurisdiction to try any dispute as mentioned in Sub Section (1) of Section 102.” Therefore, it is clear from the provisions of Co operative Societies Act, 2006 that this type of case would be filed before the Registrar, Co operative Society. In this connection the provisions of Section 100 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is very relevant which declared that 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. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of {Secretary, Tirumurugan Co-operative Vs. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305} has held that having due regard to the scheme of the Act and to protect the interest of the consumers, which the Act aims at, the provisions of the Act are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully so as to give additional and / or extended jurisdiction, but particularly when Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under Act in addition to other remedies provided under the other Acts unless there is a clear bar. In this case the provisions of Section 102 (4) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 is a clear bar and the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Under the above circumstances, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that this case be and the same is not admitted and thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given to the complainant on free of cost.