2003 (12) TMI 617 - SC - Companies Law

Whether the National Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the claim application and award compensation in respect of an accident involving the death of a person caused by the use of a motor vehicle? Held that - It is for the forum under the 1986 Act to leave the parties either to proceed or avail the remedies before the other forums depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus having regard to all aspects we are of the view that the National Commission was right in holding that the view taken by the State Commission that the provisions under the Act relating to reference of disputes to arbitration shall prevail over the provisions of the 1986 Act is incorrect and untenable. The National Commission however did not take note of the fact that the State Commission had not decided the other contentions raised in the appeals on merits. We are inclined to accept the alternative submission made on behalf of the appellant for remanding the case to the State Commission for deciding the other issues on merits while affirming that the complaints before the district forum made by the respondents were maintainable and the district forum had jurisdiction to deal with the disputes. In this view while affirming the order of the National Commission as to the maintainability of the disputes before the forum under the Act we remand the appeals to the State Commission for their adjudication on other issues on merits without going to the question of maintainability of the disputes before the forum under the 1986 Act.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in relation to disputes involving cooperative societies under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983.
2. Deficiency in service and negligence by the appellant-society.
3. Entitlement of reliefs sought by the respondents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum:
The primary issue was whether the Consumer Forum had jurisdiction to entertain disputes between members and cooperative societies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 1986 Act), given the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (the Act). The appellant argued that Section 90 of the Act impliedly ousted the jurisdiction of all courts and tribunals, including the Consumer Forum, for disputes falling within its scope. The appellant also cited Section 156, which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts over matters decided under the Act.

The respondents contended that Section 3 of the 1986 Act provides that its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. They argued that the Consumer Forum had jurisdiction since the 1986 Act aimed to provide additional remedies for consumer protection.

The Supreme Court analyzed the background, objectives, and purpose of the 1986 Act, emphasizing its role in providing speedy, effective, and additional remedies for consumer disputes. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta and Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. N.K. Modi, which supported the broad and liberal interpretation of the 1986 Act to serve its purpose. The Court concluded that the Consumer Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the disputes, as the 1986 Act provided additional remedies beyond those available under the Act.

2. Deficiency in Service and Negligence:
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum initially found in favor of the respondents, determining that there was a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the appellant-society. The State Commission, however, did not address these issues on merit, as it dismissed the complaints based on the jurisdictional argument. The National Commission restored the District Forum's order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court affirmed the National Commission's decision regarding the maintainability of the disputes before the Consumer Forum but noted that the State Commission had not adjudicated the other contentions on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded to the State Commission to decide on these issues.

3. Entitlement to Reliefs:
The respondents sought the release of pledged paddy bags upon repayment of the loan amount or, alternatively, compensation for the market value of the paddy bags with interest and compensation for mental agony and suffering. The District Forum granted reliefs to the respondents, but the State Commission did not address these entitlements due to its focus on jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's remand to the State Commission included instructions to adjudicate the respondents' entitlement to the reliefs sought on merits, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the claims.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Consumer Forum had jurisdiction to entertain disputes involving cooperative societies under the 1986 Act, as its provisions were in addition to other laws. The case was remanded to the State Commission to decide on the merits of the respondents' claims, including issues of deficiency in service, negligence, and entitlement to reliefs. The appeal was disposed of with no costs, and the assistance of the learned senior counsel was acknowledged.

← Previous Next →