IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

        CIVIL APPEAL No.36 of 2003              

M.D., Orissa Co-operative Housing Corporation Ltd. .....Appellant(s)

   K.S. Sudarshan      Versus           .....Respondent(s)

                                                  With               SLP(C) NO.18981/2005

Chief Executive, Capital Cooperative Housing Ltd.                               Versus                        

.....Petitioner(s)

Surendranath Sethee .....Respondent(s)

                            O R D E R        This  appeal,   by  special  leave,  is  directed  against  order  dated  16th  

March, 2002, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,  

New Delhi  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  'National  Commission')  in  Revision  

Petition No.1468 of 2001.  By the impugned order the Commission has affirmed  

the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orissa,  

awarding interest to the complainant at the rate of 12% per annum from 26th  

October, 1995 to 6th April, 1999 on account of failure on the part of the appellant  

to  develop  the  land  and  deliver  possession  of  the  plot  to  the  complainant-

respondent.

...2/-

:2:

Despite service, no one appears for the respondent.  Accordingly,   we  

have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

At the outset, it is fairly pointed out by  learned counsel for  the  

appellant that the question of jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain and  

try  complaints  under the Consumer Protection Act,  1986 (for  short  the  'Act')  

when there is a Bar under the Co-operative Societies Act to the jurisdiction of the  

Civil Courts to entertain any dispute between the Co-operative Society and its  

members,  is  no  more  res-integra.    In  

Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha  

(dead) Through L.Rs. & Ors. 2004 (1) SCC 305, while dealing with a similar issue  

with reference to  Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act vis-a-

vis the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under the Act it has been held by this  

Court that the remedy available to an aggrieved party under the Act being  much  

wider in its scope, Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act does  

not  oust  the jurisdiction of  the Consumer Forum to adjudicate  upon disputes  

between the members and the Co-operative Society under the said Act.  

..3/-

:3:

Thus the short question that survives for consideration in this appeal is  

whether all the three Fora were justified in awarding interest to the complainant  

on account of non-development and non-delivery of the plots.

Having carefully gone through the orders passed by  the three Fora, we  

are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present appeal.  In its order dated  

11th May, 2000, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short the 'District  

Forum')  recorded a specific finding that the appellant herein had abandoned the  

development work and thus there was deficiency in service by them.  It has been  

noted  that  the  complainant  had deposited  an amount  of  Rs.1,03,215/-  but  the  

possession of the plot, for which the said amount had been paid, was not delivered  

to  him.   Accordingly,  the  District  Forum directed  that  in  case  of  delivery  of  

possession of the plot the complainant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of  

16% per annum on the said amount from 26th October, 1995 i.e. the date of last  

deposit till the date of refund i.e. 16th April, 1999.  As noted earlier, the State  

Commission, while affirming the order passed by the District Forum reduced the  

interest from 16% to 12% per annum.  The said order of the State Commission is  

maintained by the National Commission.

..4/-

:4:

It is manifest from the orders passed by the District Forum as well as  

the State Commission that undoubtedly there was deficiency in service by the  

appellant Society inasmuch as it has failed to develop the land for which it had  

accepted money from its members including the respondent.  In view of the said  

finding, no fault can be found with the award of interest by the three Fora on  

account of the said deficiency.

Accordingly, being devoid of any merit, the appeal is dismissed.  Since  

the respondent has not appeared there will be no order as to costs.

SLP(C) NO.18981/2005:

In  view  of  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Secretary,  Thirumurugan

Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs.  M. Lalitha (dead) Through L.Rs. &  

Ors. 2004 (1) SCC 305, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned  

order.  The special leave petition is dismissed.  

....................J.        [ D.K. JAIN ]   

                                ....................J.                                                 [  B.  

SUDERSHAN REDDY ]        NEW DELHI,      APRIL 29, 2009.