Per M.P.Kasar, Member

Heard Complainant’s in person at the admission stage of complaint against opposite parties on 10/06/22. Perused Complaint filed by the complainant and document annexed along with complaint at the stage of admission of complaint below section 36(2) of CPAct.

It is observed that, allegations made in complaint by the complainant are pertaining to election programme conducted by the opposite parties and  non-inclusion of names of complainants  in the provisional list of voters dated 07/12/21  published by opposite party No.1 & signed by opposite party No.2 than secretary of opposite party No.1. According to the complainant’s opposite party No.3 is returning officer of opposite party No.1 hence he is service provider of complainant’s society i.e opposite party No.1. It is stated that, complainant is paying maintenance charges to the opposite party No.1 and in view of judgement in Thirumurugan v/s M.Lalitha  it is held by Hon’ble SC  that,maintance charges would amount to consideration so  according to the complainant opposite parties are service providers of complainants.It is allegation of complainant’s that, since  complainant’s  objected against the illegally extorted money by committee  members at the time of transfer of flat No.2007 in opposite party No.1 transferor and transferee so to harass complainant’s committee members passed resolution of to  expelled the complainants below section 35 of MCS Act 1960 from opposite party No.1 society further said resolution has been confirmed by Asst.Registrar co operative societies vide  his order dated 08/02/21 but it has been observed that, same has been challenged by complainant before Joint Registrar co operative societies  by way of filing A/105/21 in which said authority has stayed the order  dated 8/2/21 passed by Asst.Registrar co operative societies. Obviously complainant’s are members of opposite party No.1 at the time of filing present complaint hence it can be held that, complainant;s are consumers of opposite party No.1.But considering the averments  of complainants in complaint against opposite parties we found that, whole subject matter raised in complaint is pertaining to management and administration of opposite party No.1 by its office bearer and committee members. There is no any prayer made in complaint regarding illegally extorted money by opposite party No.1 at the time of transfer of flat being purchased by complainants. Averments and prayers of complainant’s made in complaint are exclusively pertaining to election programme conducted by opposite parties and deprived complainants to cast vote. Hence such a dispute does not come within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act 2019 but subject matter goes within the ambit section 91 of MCS Act 1960.Complainant can filed election petition before Appropriate Court. As it has been observed that already complainants has availed jurisdiction of Joint Registrar against decision of opposite party No.1 in regard expulsion of complainants from opposite party No.1 Society. As in instant case we did not observe that, opposite parties are service providers of complainants in view of allegations made by the complainants in complaint against opposite parties.

We perused section 35(1) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, ‘A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered  or  any service provided or agreed to be provided, may be filed with district commission ....’

Thus allegations made by the complainant in present complaint against opposite parties are   pertaining to decisions taken by opposite parties in regard election and restricted complainants from casting vote which totally comes within the ambit of MCS Act 2019 as aforesaid   .As interpreted in section 35(1) of CP Act 2019 we are of the opinion that present complaint cannot be admitted against opposite parties as subject matter of complaint exclusively comes below provisions of MCS Act 1960 and will be perfect remedy available to the complainants  .Hence we  pass order as follows :-

                                            ORDER

1. CC/22/123 is hereby rejected against opposite parties below section 36(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Liberty is hereby given to the complainant’s to file said dispute against opposite parties before appropriate court/Authority within 60 days from the receipt of order copy if complaint desires so.