Calcutta High Court: In a revision petition challenging the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums’ jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the petitioner society and the respondent, a single-judge bench comprising of Prasenjit Biswas,* J., while establishing that special laws override general laws and consumer forums cannot usurp jurisdiction conferred upon special forums, held that the dispute between the parties should have been referred to arbitration as per the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, since, the Consumer Protection Act had no application.
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a multi-state cooperative society, is aggrieved by the orders passed by both the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalpaiguri, and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata. The dispute arose when the respondent, a member of the petitioner society, filed a complaint regarding the non-disbursement of dues amounting to Rs. 12,608/-, which were allegedly withheld due to overdue interest on loans and the respondent’s status as a guarantor for another member who had not cleared their loan. Despite receiving notice, the petitioner failed to contest the case, leading to an ex-parte order in favor of the respondent.
The petitioner contended that disputes involving the constitution, management, or business of a multi-state co-operative society are subject to arbitration as per Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the District Consumer Forum entertained the complaint despite the existence of the arbitration provision under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act. The main issue in the present case is whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the petitioner society and the respondent and whether the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, override the jurisdiction of consumer forums in matters involving cooperative societies.
The Court emphasised on the specific provision under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, which mandates arbitration for disputes involving members and the society. The Court held that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum erred in not considering the statutory provision and entertaining the complaint as they lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as the matter fell within the purview of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.
The Court emphasised that the specific provisions of the special act must prevail over general consumer protection laws and stated that “when there is a specific provision in the special Act it is immaterial whether the society has demanded the dues to the loanee and the loanee or guarantor has an obligation to clear the said loan in favour of the society”.
The Court noted that “the petitioner being a multi State society is governed by the provisions of the Multi State Act. The remedy of arbitration provided under Section 84 is a statutory and is binding on all parties mentioned therein. There can therefore be no dispute that the dispute between the petitioner co-operative society on the one hand and the opposite party, who was its member, could be referred to arbitration.”
The Court opined that the failure of the lower forums to consider the statutory provisions and refer the dispute to arbitration under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act constituted illegality and material irregularity. Thus, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the revisional application and disposing of the connected applications. However, it clarified that the order did not prevent the respondent from seeking redressal through the appropriate forum.
[Secy, E & NF Railway Junior Coop. Credit Society Ltd., Eastern Railway v. Jyotish Chandra Sarkar, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1668, order dated 20-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Prasenjit Biswas
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Kishore Mukherjee and Mr. Soumyajit Mukherjee, Counsel for the Petitioner
