BILASPUR DISTRICT TRUCK OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD. Vs. DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of fact and law have been raised in all these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner -society is seeking a direction to respondent No. 1 -The District Consumer Redressal Forum (in short 'DCRF'), not to entertain the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against it inter alia amongst others, being C.C. No. 171/2010, on the ground of want of jurisdiction. According to the petitioner respondent No. 2 is one of its shareholders. It being so, he does not fall within the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'the Act').

(2.) COPY of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 before DCRF has been placed on record as Annexure -P. 1 and reply thereto filed on behalf of the petitioner -society and its President as Annexure -P. 2, meaning thereby that the complaint stands already entertained and the petitioner has also entered upon reply.

(3.) THE above proposition of law has further been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 7.12.2011, in Civil Appeal No. 10706 of 2011 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 17213 of 2010), titled Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and others. The relevant portions of the order are extracted below: - -