MANAGING DIRECTOR KONARK TELEVISION LTD Vs. MADHUSUDAN PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sampuran Singh Deol, the complainant challenges in this appeal order of District Forum, Ludhiana dated October 4, 1996 whereby his complaint filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act was dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts for determination of dispute raised in this appeal are broadly admitted and are thus briefly stated. Sampuran Singh Deol is a Member of Cooperative Society, opposite party No.2, Doraha Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. , Doraha. As Member, he approached the Cooperative Society for financial help for the purpose of plantation of Poplar trees in his agricultural land measuring about 5 hectares. The Cooperative Society decided to finance the loan to the tune of Rs.2,65,000/- for plantation of 2500 Poplar trees. The amount was to be financed in instalments at different stages. Five such instalments of different amount were released. Fifth instalment was released on December 26,1991. Thereafter, the Society did not release the subsequent instalments of the loan. The complainant suffered loss as on account of non-availability of funds, he could not properly look after the Poplar trees. He had to raise Rs.30,000/- from the local money-lender on December 1,1992 for maintenance of the trees @ 24% p. a. interest. He was also forced by the opposite party to return the amount of loan already borrowed. The complainant was compelled to sell 400 immature trees at the throw away price of Rs.1,40,000/-. In all, he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- that he claimed the same in the complaint moved before the District Forum. The Society contested the complaint inter alia on the ground of lack of jurisdiction with the District Forum to entertain the complaint in view of the provisions of Sec.55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The primary objection prevailed with the District Forum that the complaint was dismissed.

(3.) The District Forum relied upon the decision of Madhya Pradesh State Commission in Dalip Singh and Others V/s. Prabhandhak Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Maryadit Jhabua and Another,1996 1 CLT 191 which decision is further based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in The Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation V/s. The Consumer Protection Council, 1995 1 CPJ 3. The case of Dalip Singh briefly was that he was Member of the Cooperative Society and had purchased a tractor with the financial assistance provided by the Society. The tractor met with an accident causing death of one Madiya whose legal heirs moved Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation. The complainant, Dalip Singh and others were held liable to pay compensation on account of negligence of the Cooperative Society in not getting the policy of insurance renewed. Thus in the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, Dalip Singh and others claimed damages from the Cooperative Society. It was held that such a complaint was not maintainable and the State Commission dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in The Chairman. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation's case. That was a case where one K. Kumar suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident being a passenger of the omnibus and the Consumer Protection Council on behalf of his legal representatives lodged the complaint before the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. The claim was contested on the ground that jurisdiction lay with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to grant compensation and not with the for a. The National Commission had allowed the complaint. The Supreme Court revesed the decision.