Case Note & Summary
This group of writ petitions was filed by members of managing committees of cooperative credit societies challenging the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain complaints against them. The petitioners raised three main grounds: (i) cooperative credit societies do not provide any service as contemplated under the Act, and even if they do, such services are not rendered for remuneration; (ii) the complainants being members of the societies, the appropriate forum is the cooperative court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act; and (iii) members of managing committees cannot be held liable in their individual capacity. The court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petitions, holding that cooperative credit societies do provide services for remuneration when they accept deposits and grant loans, and thus fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The court further held that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to other remedies, and the consumer forum has jurisdiction despite the existence of cooperative courts. Regarding individual liability, the court held that members of managing committees can be held personally liable for acts done on behalf of the society. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum - Cooperative Credit Societies - Services for Remuneration - The issue was whether cooperative credit societies provide 'service' for 'remuneration' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court held that accepting deposits and providing loans constitutes service for remuneration, bringing such societies within the purview of the Act. (Paras 1-3) B) Consumer Law - Alternative Remedy - Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act - The petitioners argued that disputes between members and societies should be adjudicated by cooperative courts under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The court held that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of other remedies, and the consumer forum has concurrent jurisdiction. (Paras 1-3) C) Consumer Law - Liability of Managing Committee Members - Individual Capacity - The petitioners contended that members of managing committees cannot be held personally liable. The court held that if the society is liable, the members of the managing committee can also be proceeded against in their individual capacity for acts done on behalf of the society. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has jurisdiction to entertain complaints against cooperative credit societies and pass orders against members of their managing committees.
Final Decision
The court dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints against cooperative credit societies and pass orders against members of their managing committees. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986 applies to cooperative credit societies
- services rendered for remuneration
- jurisdiction of consumer forum not ousted by Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- managing committee members can be held liable in individual capacity
