The District Forum, in the light of the pleadings of the parties, raised the following points for determination Whether the companyplainants are companysumers and whether there is any companysumer disputes within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and whether this Forum has numberjurisdiction to entertain the companyplaints of this nature and decide the issue?
The legal representatives of the deceased victim did number file claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal companystituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party in all the companyplaints?
The order of the State Commission was set aside restoring the order passed by the District Forum.
Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the respondents approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by filing revision petition.
The appellant companytested the claims of the respondents before the District Forum raising a preliminary objection that Consumer Forum had numberjurisdiction to decide the dispute between members and companyperative society in view of Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 for short the Act .
Hence, the State Commission did number deal with the other companytentions.
A deeper look at the facts of that case and question companysidered therein make it clear that it governs the fact of that case having regard to the specific provisions companytained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Consequently, the revision petition was allowed.
The respondents also filed appeal to the extent they were aggrieved in regard to payment of interest from 14.9.1992.
Whether the companyplainants in all the companyplaints are entitled to the reliefs prayed for?
The respondents filed petitions in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruchirapally seeking direction to the appellant to release the paddy bags pledged on receipt of the loan amount or in the alternative to direct the appellant to pay the market value of the baddy bags with interest thereon from the date of pledging till the date of release and also to pass an order for companypensation for mental agony and suffering.
The State Commission held that companyplaints filed by the respondents were themselves number maintainable having regard to Section 90 of the Act.
In this situation the person, who was sitting in the rear seat, was thrown in the front and hit against the iron bar sustaining a serious head injury and subsequently succumbed to the injury.
The appellant took up the matters in appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Hence, this appeal.
The District Forum answered the points 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents and granted relief.
The National Commission, after hearing the learned companynsel for the parties and dealing with the companytentions advanced by them, found fault with the order of the State Commission.
The State Commission, by the companymon order, allowed the appeals filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents.
In brief the facts of the case are that a person was traveling in an omni bus, the driver of the bus tried to overtake a bullock cart due to which the bullocks got panicky whereupon the driver swerved the bus to the left and applied brakes.
Shivaraj V. Patil J. The respondents, being the members of the appellant society, had pledged paddy bags for obtaining loan.
The appellant society issued numberices to the respondents demanding payment of loan amount with interest thereon.
