TIPTUR TALUK AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS CO OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of appeals as also the connected Writ Petition all involves a common point of law of some importance namely the question as to whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to decide a dispute relating to a monetary claim preferred by a member of the A. P. M. C. against a Co-operative Society or whether, under the A. P. M. C. Act it is the Disputes Redressal committee of the A. P. M. C. that is invested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The appellants before us as also the petitioners in the companion Writ Petition are the Tiptur Taluk agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited. The disputes in question go back to the year 1994 and the brief facts are that the Society was required to receive from the respondents the agricultural produce brought by them for sale to the market yard which was in turn put up for sale in keeping with the procedures prescribed by the A. P. M. C. The price having been fixed, the Society was required to pay the producers on that very date the amount realized irrespective of the fact that the buyer may pay up the amount after some time. The Society contends that the 2 percent commission that it was entitled to was required to be paid by the buyer and that the respondent purchasers were not required to pay anything for the services. We need to record here that this aspect has been seriously contested by the learned Advocates representing the respondent purchasers because it is their contention that out of the aggregate realized from the buyer that the Society was entitled to retain the 2 percent and pay the rest of the money to the purchasers and that effectively, this 2 percent commission represented the consideration for the services. We refer to this factual aspect because something does turn on it.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondents they had supplied various quantities of copra to the Society for sale and that the Society did not make the payments to them. In one case it appears that the a. P. M. C. on the basis of a complaint directed the Society to make the payment but in the remaining cases there is no such direction. According to the claimants since the Society refused to pay them for the goods that had been delivered they were left with no option except to file their claims before the District Consumer Redressal forum. Again, in the first of the cases though notice was issued to the Society it did not appear or contest the proceeding and the order was passed against the Society. In the remaining cases since the society took up the contention that the claimants were not consumers and that consequently the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims particularly in view of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act which mandates that all disputes between a Society and its member are required to be referred to the Forum set up under the Co-operative Societies Act, the issue of jurisdiction was seriously contested and by a majority judgment, the Forum held that the claimants were consumers in so far as they had availed of the services of the Society and secondly that under the Consumer protection Act that the Forum did have jurisdiction. One of the members dissented and held that the Forum did not have jurisdiction. The majority judgment was the subject matter of the Writ Petitions that were filed before the learned Single Judge, who in turn summarily disposed of the Writ Petitions on the ground that the petitioners namely the Society had their appellate remedies under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act and that consequently, the Writ petitions were not maintainable. It is against this order that the present appeals have been preferred and the connected Writ Petition also concerns an identical issue. The appellants learned Counsel has vehemently submitted before us that there is a complete bar to the claimants approaching the Consumer Forum in so far as according to her, this is a dispute that is squarely covered by the a. P. M. C. Act. Our attention was drawn to Section 84 of the Act which reads as follows:- Section 84. Provision for settlement of disputes-

(3.) LEARNED Counsel submitted that in the first instance Section 84 is wide enough to cover all disputes of whatsoever nature that take place within the framework of the working of the market yard irrespective of who the contesting parties are. An emphasis was laid on the fact that the Section makes adequate provision for redressal of these disputes in so far as the rules provide for the setting up of a Committee of Arbitrators who in turn are required to examine the dispute and decide on it. A lot of emphasis was laid on the fact that the Section contains a non-obstante clause which specifies that no Civil Court shall entertain any proceeding in relation to any such dispute. The submission canvassed was that not only does the Act prescribe for a complete redressal procedure in the event of grievances but secondly that there is a reverse provision which contemplates the decision of all such disputes only by the committee set up by the A. P. M. C. Furthermore, in order to ensure that the parties do not wrongly approach the Civil Court the Section very specifically debars the Civil Court entertaining any such dispute notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Learned Counsel submitted that it is not so much the question as to whether the claimants can answer to the definition of consumers or not because even assuming for purposes of argument that they contend that they must be regarded as consumers that the law still bars jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and that consequently, the order passed by the Forum holding that it had jurisdiction was erroneous and is liable to be quashed. The further submission canvassed was that the learned Single Judge was in error in having mechanically redirected the parties to the appellate forum when it was incumbent on the part of the High Court to have examined the jurisdiction issue and if the appellants were right, to have then redirected the claimants to the A. P. M. C. Committee.