LexTHE SECRETARY, THIRUMURUGAN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY versus M. LALITHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE SECRETARY, THIRUMURUGAN CO-OPERATIVE
A
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY
v.
M. LALITHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
DECEMBER 11, 2003
B
{SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 3-Tam;/ Nadu Coopera-
tive Societies Act, 1983-Sections 90 & 156-Jurisdiction of Consumer C
Forums to entertain disputes between cooperative society and its members
under the former Act-Availability of-Held, the former Act provides
additional remedy for resolving of disputes-Provisions of the former Act
should be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully-Sodone, such
jurisdiction available to consumer forums.
D
Respondent-members of the appellant-society obtained loans from
the appellant by pledging paddy bags. The appellant issued notices to
the respondents demanding repayment of loan amount with interest.
The respondents filed petitions before District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum seeking direction to the appellant to release the E
paddy bags pledged on repayment of the loan amount or to pay t'1e
market value of the paddy bags with interest thereon from the date
of pledging till the date of release and to pay compensation for mental
agony and suffering. The appellant contended before the District
Forum that it has no jurisdiction under the Consumer Projection Act, F
1986 (1986 Act) to entertain the complaints of the respondents in view
of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (Tamil
Nadu Act). The District forum rejected the contention of the appellants
and held in favour of the respondents. The District Forum, however,
did not grant interest claimed by the respondents. The appellants filed G
appeal before State Commission. The respondents also filed appeals in
regard to payment of interest. The State Commission, by a common
order, allowed the appeals of the appellant and dismissed the appeals
of the respondents. The revision petitions preferred by the respondents
before the National Commission was allowed.
H
659
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
In appeal, the appellant-Society contended that the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Act· impliedly oust the jurisdiction of all courts and
Tribunals including the Consumer Forums; that the Tamil Nadu Act
is a special enactment dealing with such disputes and has specific
provisions for appeal, revision and review; and that there would be
B likelihood of conflicting decisions if the same disputes are entertained
by different forums. The appellant alternatively submitted that in case
the contentions are not'accepted, the matter may be remanded to the
State Commission to adjudicate the issues other than the maintainability
raised before it.
C
· The respondent-members contended that Section 3 of the 1986
Act clearly specifics that the remedy under the 1986 Act is in addition
to and not in derogation of the other remedies available; and that
Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Act only bars the jurisdiction of civil
courts in respect to certain matters and not the jurisdiction of the
D Consumer Forums.
Dismissing the appeal and remanding the matter to the State
Commission, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act,
E 1986, the provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation to
any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
Having due regard to the scheme of the 1986 Act and purpose sougU
to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers better, the
provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully
F in the context of the present case to give meaning to. additional/
extended jurisdiction unless there is a clear bar. (667-H; 668-A-B)
Lucknow Development Authority v. MS. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243;
Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. NK. Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385;
Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjo[ Ahluwalia thro' K.S. Ahluwalia
G & Anr., (1998) 4 sec 39 and State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House
Building Coop. Society & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 412, relied on.
Dhulabhai & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (1968)
3 SCR 662 and Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v.
H Consumer Protection Council, (1995) 2 SC 479, distinguished.
SECY. THIRUMURUGAN CO-OPER. AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCY. v. M. LAUTHA 661
1.2. The remedies that are available to an aggrieved party under A
the 1986 Act are wider. In addition to granting a specific relief, the
forums under thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.