O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).
The complainant Smt. Banti Devi on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to deploy her truck in BDTS Society, Barmana, and to pay a damage of Rupees 4 Lac along with compensation of Rupees 50,000/- on the grounds that she is the founding Member vide Membership NO. 1098 and shareholder of said Society and is having SB Account No. 1623 of 1997-98, Card No. 672. She was the owner of truck No. HP-24-3011 which was attached with the said Society, but unfortunately the said truck met with an accident. Compelling by economic crisis she disposed of the said truck. At that time there was not gutta system in the said Society. She submitted an application in the year 2008 to attach her truck with the said society and thereafter she purchased a new truck in place of said truck bearing No. HP-69-1625, but the said society delayed the decision on her application and illegally refused to deploy her truck, hence she was debarred from earning her livelihood which amounts to deficiency in service.
2. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 disputed the said claim and has set up the defense that in the year 2000 there was no gutta system and the persons who were able to become the Members of the Society can attach their vehicles, but this type of system was upto 2003. In the year 2003 the General House of the Society has imposed a ban for attaching the new vehicles, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted that one Shri Vishal Bansal has filed a writ petition No. CWP-1113 of 2007 challenging the working system of the Society before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in which the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to constitute a committee consisting of three members to see the system of the society who after hearing all the concerned submitted their report to the Hon’ble High Court with some recommendations which have been accepted and the High Court has directed the society to ensure the meeting of the General House of the society and consider the recommendations of the Committee. Accordingly, the society conveyed the General House Meeting on 20-06-2008 in which the said recommendations were approved and amendment in the bye-laws were accordingly made. In the General House it was dissolved that all the members who are not possessing any vehicle should be removed from the membership of the society after providing them an opportunity of being heard and only 2032 vehicles would ply in the roll of the society. As per said resolution the notices were sent to the persons who had no vehicle in 2032 enrolled vehicles and after receiving their replies the General House cancelled the membership of those persons who were not having vehicles in 2032 trucks, which are presently enrolled with the society and the society is also refunding their membership amount. It is further submitted that the complainant had sold her truck to Shri Krishan Lal in the year 2000 and as such the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have committed no deficiency in service.
3. The opposite parties No.3 and 4 have disputed the claim of the complainant and have set up the defense that the complaint is not maintainable against them as no action on their part has been challenged in the present complaint. The Registrar exercises only regulatory control over the cooperative society in question under the Cooperative Societies Act and the opposite parties No.3 and 4 have no roll to play in the allocation of the working to the members of a Cooperative Society as per its bye laws is the day to day business of a Cooperative Society and if in the course of such business any dispute arises between the Society and its members under Section 72 of the Act, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and as per Section 72 , no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes and as such the complaint against opposite parties No.3 and 4 is liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties have led evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the complaint.
6. There is no dispute that a Cooperative Society is functioning under the name ‘The Bilaspur District Truck Operators Cooperative Transport Society Ltd.’ Barmana, in District Bilaspur, H.P. which is duly registered under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968. It has several members. The complainant is also one of the member of the said society vide membership No. 1098. She is having SB Account No. 1623 of 1997-98 and holder of Card No. 672 with the said society. The shareholders of the said society have deployed and attached their trucks with the said society for transportation of cement from a ACC Cement Factory, Barmana to various places in India. The complainant was the registered owner of truck No. HP_24-3011 which was attached with the said society. The said truck met with an accident and has been disposed of by the complainant. The complainant in the year 2008 moved an application for attachment of new truck No. HP-69-1625, but the said society refused to attach the said truck and to the contrary cancelled the membership of the complainant and returned her membership amount vide cheque dated 25-08-2010 amounting to Rupees 1000/-. The complainant protested against the cancellation of her membership through letter dated 29-09-2010 Annexure C-2. It is revealed from the evidence on record that one Shri Vishal Bansal has filed civil writ petition No. 1113 of 2007 before Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In the said writ petition the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed order dated 12-11-2007 Annexure OP-1 vide which a Committee comprising of three officers was constituted and directed to as to whether the gutta system in vogue was fool proof, efficient as well as free from the vice and danger of misuse and exploitation.
7. The said committee submitted its report Annexure OP-2. The said report was accepted by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide order dated 21-04-2008 Annexure OP-3 and directed the said society to act according to the directions passed in the said order. In compliance with the said order the Society has passed various resolutions Annexure OP-1 to Annexure OP-11. The said writ petition as conveyed by the learned counsel for the parties is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In case the said society has not followed the directions of the Hon’ble High Court the complainant was at liberty to approach the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, but the complainant instead of has come up with the present complaint which is not maintainable, in our considered opinion, in view of the pendency of the writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
8. Although, the complainant has claimed that she had deployed her truck to earn her livelihood and now want to deploy the new truck to earn her livelihood. The purpose for which the truck is to be deployed is commercial. The complainant has neither alleged nor proved that she had deployed or she want to deploy new truck for transportation of the cement to earn her livelihood exclusively by way of self employment, hence this Forum is bound to conclude that the complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Further more, the allocation of work to the members of the Cooperative Society as per its bye-laws is its day to day business and if in the course of said business any dispute arises between the society and its members under Section 72 of the Cooperative Society, 1968, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. Similarly, Section 92 of the Cooperative Society, 1968 also bars the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of any dispute required under Section 72 to be referred to the Registrar. The complainant could have referred the dispute to the Registrar and equal efficacious remedy was available with the complainant, but she has failed to get the matter referred to the Registrar.
10. The opposite parties No.3 and 4 are statutory authorities and they are functioning under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 and as such the complainant could not be considered as consumer of the opposite parties No.3 and 4 at all, hence the complaint is not at all maintainable against them.
11. No other point urged or argued.
12. In view of the findings recorded above, this Forum is left with no alternative except to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove that she is a consumer of the opposite parties and the complaint is not at all maintainable against the opposite parties No.3 and 4. The complainant has not filed the complaint against the Society, but against its President and General Secretary and as such also the complaint is not maintainable. Even otherwise, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence viewing from any angle the complaint is not legally competent.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, complete in all respects, be consigned to the Records.
ANNOUNCED & SIGNED IN THE OPEN FORUM;
Today this the 21st day of January, 2015.
( B.R. Chandel)
President
(Manorma Chauhan) (Pawan Kumar)
Member Member
