The complainant files hazira through Ld. Advocate along with V.nama and firisti containing Xerox copies of documents.

The case is taken up for admission hearing and order.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

Perused the petition of complaint and listed documents so filed by the complainant. It appears that the O.P is the registered Co-operative Society and the complainant has made transactions with the O.P for getting membership of the O.P society with a prayer to hand over a shop complex to him though the complainant made payment for the same. The complainant also filed an application before the A.R.C.S Uttar Dinajpur Range Karnojora, Uttar Dinajpur through the Inspector of Co-operative Societies Raiganj Development Block for effecting his above prayer and as no reply or action has been given by the A.R.C.S, he filed the complaint before this Commission. It is clear from this petition of complaint and document 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 operative or between a co operative society and any person giving transactions with it or between a co operative society and its financial bank. For which the case is to be filed before the Registrar, Co operative Society. 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). 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 {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 addition 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.