Order  Date: 22.09.2022.

          Today is fixed for passing order in respect of M.A. Cases being Nos.  02/2021.

            M. A case being No. 02 /2021 has been filed by the OP No.2.

            The complainant has filed Written Version. Complainant also filed another Written        Objection against the M. A. Cases.

            The M. A. case has been taken up for hearing and it was heard.

            It appears from the record that OP No.5 did not file any M. A. Case praying that the case is not maintainable in law.

            But the OP Nos. 2,3, 6,7 & 8 filed the above  M.A. Case praying for dismissing the  case on the ground of maintainability and pointed out that according to Section 102(4) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies  Act, 2006, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum shall not have any jurisdiction to try any dispute as mentioned in Sub-Sec.(1) of Sec. 102 of the said Act and the OPs also  made submissions regarding the provision of Sec. 145 of the West Bengal Co-Operative Societies  Act, 2006 which is not relevant for consideration of their petition. But the provisions of 102 shall be taken into consideration. The Sec. 102(1)(d) provides, “ 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 financing bank, the civil suit is to be filed before the Registrar and according to Sec. 102(4)  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).

            The complainant also submitted that Sub-section 2 of Sec. 145 of Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 is not applicable here. During hearing one provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was agitated. That provision of Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides 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.” And in this connection it is well-settled in law 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 , particularly when  Sec. 3 seeks  to provide remedy under  Act in addition to  other remedies provided under the other Acts unless there is a clear bar [ Secretary, Tirumurugan Co-Operative Vs. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC-305]. In Subrata Roy Vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharjee (2000) 3 CPJ. 75 (W.B) , it was held that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute between a member and the co-operative society, in view of forum constituted under the W.B. Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.   

            According to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, it is clear that Sec. 3 seeks to provide remedy under act in addition to other remedies provided under the other Acts unless there is a clear bar. In the provision of Sec. 102(4) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 there is clear bar.

            In the instant case, the OP Nos. 1,2,3 4 & 7 are guided by the provisions of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies  Act, 2006 and the complainants are the members of OP No.2 and OP No.2 had transactions with the OP No.5 in view of the scheme of OP No.6 and there is no relief against the OP No.8, District Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman. Therefore, according to Section 102 of the West Bengal Co-operative Society’s Act, 2006 this Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try any dispute mentioned in Sub-section 1 of Sec. 102 of the said Act. According to the said Section of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies  Act, 2006, Registrar of Co-operative Society is the proper authority where the plaint is to be filed.

            Having considered the above facts and circumstances, we are of opinion that this case is not maintainable at all against all the OPs as this Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try the dispute.

            Hence, it is

                                                               ORDERED

That the M.A. Cases being No. 02-2021 is allowed on contest but without any cost.

            The M.A. Cases being No. 02-2021 is thus also disposed of.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.

      Dictated & corrected by me.

                      President

     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.

                     Member                                                                    President

     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman.                                     D.C.D.R.C , Purba Bardhaman

Order  Date:  22 .09.2022

In view of the order passed in M. A Case being Nos. 02/2021,

 the case being No. CC- 97/2020 is also disposed of.

        Member                                                        Member                                                 President

D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman                D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman          D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman