CMPMO No. 341 of 2012-F. Case: The Bilaspur District Truck Operators Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. through its General Secretary Sh. Raj Pal Gautam, office at Barmana, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. Vs The District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, through its President., Rejender Kumar S/o Sh. Bali Ram R/o vill. & P.O. Auhar Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., The Registrar Co-operative Societies State of H.P. SDA Complex Kasumpti, Shimla-2 H.P. and The Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur H.P., [Alongwith CMPMO Nos. 367, 368, 369, 370 and 371 of 2012-F]. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberCMPMO No. 341 of 2012-F
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate
JudgesKuldip Singh, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115; Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 3
Judgement DateJanuary 09, 2013
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

Kuldip Singh, J.

  1. This judgment shall dispose of CMPMO Nos. 341, 367, 368, 369, 370 and 371 of 2012-F, as common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions. The facts are given from CMPMO No. 341 of 2012-F. It has been stated that petitioner is a registered Cooperative Society under the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (for short, 1968 Act). Any dispute to get membership in the society or to settle the dispute with respect to membership is strictly governed under the 1968 Act, Rules and Bye-laws. The respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint CC No. 170 of 2010 before respondent No. 1 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 1986 Act), which is pending before respondent No. 1. The petitioner has been summoned in the case and has been ordered to file reply to the complaint. The petitioner has filed reply and has taken objections of maintainability. The respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. The 1968 Act provides complete mechanism to decide the dispute raised by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is not a consumer under 1986 Act. The respondent No. 2 himself has stated in the complaint that he is a shareholder in the society.

  2. The respondent No. 1 has wrongly entertained the complaint for adjudication. The objections raised by the petitioners regarding the maintainability and jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 have not been decided. The respondent No. 1 has exceeded the jurisdiction and has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it.

  3. The petitioner will be dragged in unnecessary litigation and has to challenge the order in appeal in case the objection of the petitioner is decided against the petitioner. The present petition has been filed to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The respondent No. 2 cannot be consumer and owner being the member of the petitioner.

  4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in all petitions has been heard on the question of maintainability of the petitions. He has reiterated the stand taken in the petitions. In brief, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that complaints filed by respondent No. 2 before respondent No. 1 under 1986 Act are misconceived in the teeth of 1968 Act, where complete mechanism has been provided for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. The respondent No. 2 has claimed himself to be the member of petitioner society and, therefore, respondent No. 2 cannot be owner as well as consumer as defined under the 1986 Act. The filing of the complaint before a forum, which lacks inherent jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case, is abuse of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT