AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on perusal of the material available before us and on hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant and Manager/employee of the respondent. (For brevity''s sake appellant, who is original complainant is referred to as "Complainant" and respondent/org. O.P. as "Bank").
COMPLAINANT has filed this appeal against the order dated 29.7.2003 passed by the District Forum, Beed, dismissing her complaint with a view that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, since the complainant was the member of the Bank which was registered under Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act, 1961 and that being so, the jurisdiction would lay before the Co-operative Court, especially under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. At the outset, we wish to state that the view of the District Forum cannot be sustained in view of settled position of law in this regard.
Facts show that complainant has some grievance with regard to sanction and release of the loan, for which she had applied and that being so, the nature of service hired by the complainant pertains to the banking business, which is permissible to the Bank to undertake under the provisions of Reserve Bank of India Act and Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and as such, would be squarely amenable to the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora as per definition of service under Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
FURTHERMORE, recently Hon''ble Supreme Court in its judgment, in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (dead) through Legal Representatives and Others, reported in I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC), has clearly held that the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora in the dispute of such nature is not ousted in view of provisions as contained in Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides an additional remedy over and above available in the other Statutes to the parties. Further more, it is necessary to state and reiterate that governing factor for jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, established and functioning under Consumer protection Act, 1986 (The Act) is the kind of service provided by the provider of the service to the hirer of the service and not the status of the former i.e., of the Provider of Service. Refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, reported in III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=1993 CTJ 929 (SC) (CP); (ii) of the National Commission in the case of Smt. Kalawati and Others v. M/s. United Vaish Co-op. Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., reported in I (2002) CPJ 71 (NC)=1986-2002 Consumer 5793 (NS); and (iii) of this Commission in the case of Mahavir Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. and Others v. Bhanudas S. Kulkarni and Others, decided on 20.12.2000 in Appeal Nos. 1845 to 1869 of 2000 and reported in 2000 CTJ P. 332, supporting to the issue in question. For all these reasons, we think it appropriate that this matter should go back to the District Forum for consideration afresh. ORDER 1. It is held that District Forum, Beed has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute being the subject matter of the complaint herein. 2. Appeal is allowed and its impugned order dated 29.7.2003 is set aside. 3. Matter is remitted to the District Forum, Beed for consideration afresh on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Law and the Rules and on giving proper opportunities to the parties thereunder. 4. Appellant''s Advocate shall furnish copy of the order herein to the District Forum, Beed immediately. 5. By consent the date of appearance before the District Forum, Beed by the parties is fixed on 18.5.2004, on which date the parties shall ensure their appearances before the District Forum without fail and seek the directions with regard to the fixation of date of hearing. 6. It is made clear and distinctly understood to the parties that no further notices for appearance will be required to be issued by the District Forum to the parties. 7. The District Forum shall proceed to dispose of the complaint totally uninfluenced by its earlier findings or any observations of ours in the judgment herein concerning the merits of the matter treating the same as our prima facie views and observations thereof. 8. District Forum to ensure expeditious disposal of the matter after remand. 9. As far as this appeal is concerned, no order as to costs. 10. Office shall furnish copies of the order to the parties.
Appeal allowed.