Structured Summary of the Opinion

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Swapan Kumar Mahanty (President), Hon'ble Mr. Rabi Deb Mukherjee (Member), Hon'ble Mrs. Sahana Ahmed Basu (Member).

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arose from an application dated 04.10.2018 (M.A. No. 275 of 2018) filed by the Opposite Party, Karubak Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., challenging the maintainability of a consumer complaint. The hearing is recorded as an application under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986. The Opposite Party contended that the subject disputes fall within Section 102(1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 and are therefore excluded from the jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums by virtue of Section 102(4) of that Act. The complainant contested this, arguing that Section 102(4) was inapplicable because the society's bye-laws allegedly lack Section 102 due to non-renewal/non-validation and that the society had not issued a certificate in his favour, meaning he was not a regular member. The record shows the court treated it as undisputed that the Opposite Party is a registered co-operative housing society operating under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, and that the complainant is a member who received allotment of flat No. 4B (top floor) by lottery. The application sought dismissal of the consumer complaint on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether disputes concerning the management, business or affairs of a registered Co-operative Society (as described in Section 102(1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006) fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Registrar such that Civil Courts and Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums lack jurisdiction under Section 102(4) of that Act.
2. Whether the consumer complaint alleging grievances arising from an allotment of a flat by a member of the Co-operative Society is barred as an internal dispute of the Society and therefore not maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
3. Whether Section 102(4) is inapplicable in circumstances where, as alleged by the complainant, the society's bye-laws are "devoid of Section 102" because of non-renewal/non-validation and where the complainant claims not to be a regular member (as argued by the complainant).

Arguments of the Parties

Opposite Party's Arguments (Karubak Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.)

• The disputes referred to in the consumer complaint fall under Section 102(1)(d) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 (i.e., disputes concerning management/business/affairs of a Co-operative Society).
• Section 102(4) of the Act bars Civil Courts and Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums from trying disputes that are referable to the Registrar under Section 102(1); accordingly, the learned District Forum lacked jurisdiction and should dismiss the complaint.

Complainant's Arguments

• Section 102(4) is inapplicable in the present case because the Society's bye-laws are said to be devoid of Section 102 due to non-renewal and non-validation.
• The Opposite Party had not issued a certificate in favour of the complainant; therefore, the complainant asserted he was not a regular member of the Society.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the material on record and the submissions of both sides. It observed that the Opposite Party is a registered Co-operative Housing Society functioning under the provisions of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, its rules and bye-laws. The court further recorded that it was not in dispute that the complainant is a member who was allotted flat No. 4B on the top floor (the allotment was by lottery).

For statutory context, the court reproduced Section 102(1) (listing categories of disputes concerning management, business or affairs of a Co-operative Society that must be filed before the Registrar) and Section 102(4) (providing that no Civil Court or Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum shall have jurisdiction to try disputes mentioned in Sub‑section (1)). The court emphasized the plain language of Section 102(4): matters referable to the Registrar under Section 102(1) are excluded from the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and Consumer Forums.

The court also noted the statutory definition of "dispute" under Section 4(25) of the Act, 2006, which includes matters capable of being the subject of civil litigation and claims in respect of sums payable to or by a Co-operative Society. Applying these provisions to the facts, the court concluded that the complainant's grievance—arising from allotment of a flat to a member of the Society—is an internal matter of the Co-operative Society and thus an internal dispute referable to the Registrar.

Based on this statutory reading and the characterization of the complaint as an internal society dispute, the court found the consumer complaint barred by Section 102(4) and therefore not maintainable before the consumer forum.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application filed by the Opposite Party (M.A. No. 275 of 2018 dated 04.10.2018) was allowed and disposed of. The consumer complaint was dismissed as not maintainable under Section 102(4) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006. There was no order as to costs.

Implications: The direct consequence of the decision is that the consumer complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the dispute is an internal matter of the registered Co-operative Society and thus referable to the Registrar under Section 102(1). The opinion explicitly states this order does not prevent the complainant from seeking remedies before the appropriate Court or Forum that has jurisdiction. The opinion does not discuss or lay down any broader legal principle beyond the application of the cited statutory provisions, and it does not purport to create new precedent.

Disposition

M.A. No. 275/2018 is allowed on contest and disposed of. The instant consumer complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. The complainant remains free to approach an appropriate court/forum having jurisdiction.