Shri. Velankar, Representative for the complainants

Advocate Rahul Gandhi for the Opponents

Per Hon’ble Shri. V.P. Utpat, President

Order Below Interim Application dated 3/3/2012 filed by Opponent Nos. 4 to 6

                                Dated 3^rd July 2014

[1]            Present complaint is filed by the flat owners against office bearers of the society for deficiency in service. It is the case of complainants that they are the co-owner of the flat No.12 in Abhanga Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Though the Complainant No.2 was elected as Treasurer of the society, complainant has not executed indemnity bond in Form M20 under MCS Act, 1960. Hence, she is deemed to have vacated her post on and after 15/12/2010 and remained as member of the society. Opponent Nos. 2 to 5 had also not executed indemnity bond and they have also deemed to have vacated office on and after 15/12/2010. However, they have still continuing as office bearers. Opponent No.3 is not working personally as Secretary and he had handed over the charge to the Opponent No.6- Shri. Kishore Ahuja, who is neither Member of the society nor resident of the society. Complainants have asked various reliefs and prayed for restraining the Opponents from entering into the premises of society. They have also asked that Shri. Kishore Ahuja be directed to handover record of the society and Chairman and Secretary be pleased to keep all record and documents within the premises of society. They have also asked compensation of Rs.25,000/- from the Opponents  for deficiency in service as well as for reimbursement of Rs.18,867/- i.e. expenses incurred by the complainant No.2 for the society. Complainants have further asked compensation of Rs.50,000/- from Chairman and Secretary for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding.

[2]            Opponent Nos.4,6 and 8 have appeared before the Forum and filed application for dismissal of complaint on preliminary issue. According to them the relations between themselves and complainants are not consumers and complaint is not maintainable. They have prayed for dismissal of complaint on preliminary issue.

[3]            This application is resisted by the complainants by filing reply. According to the complainants Opponent No.4 and 5 are the members of Managing committee, Opponent No.1 is the society and complainants have asked relief against office bearer. The application filed by the Opponents for framing preliminary issue is not at all maintainable. Complainants have prayed for dismissal of the application.

[4]            After considering the pleadings of both parties, hearing the argument of both counsel as well as scrutinizing the documentary evidence on record, following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-

Reasons-

As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2-

[5]            On careful perusal of the complaint, particularly the prayer clause, it reveals that the complainants have asked relief of permanent injunction against some of the office bearers. They have further asked relief against Shri. Kishore Ahuja who is neither the Member of the society nor the office bearer. They have further asked relief against the Secretary and Chairman of the society directing them to keep all the record and documents within the premises of society. They have further asked compensation from Opponent Nos. 11 and 12 as well as from other Members. It also reveals from the complaint itself that as the complainants could not execute the bond in Form M20 which is mandatory under the MCS Act, 1960, complainant is deemed to have vacated the post. Complainants have also contended that the Opponent Nos. 2 to 5 had also not executed the indemnity bond and they are also deemed to have vacated the office.  In the light of this pleading it is significant to note that the Opponents are deemed to have vacated the office as Secretary and Chairman, the relations between the parties cannot be said as ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ The learned Advocate for the Opponents has also argued that the office bearers are not getting any remuneration, the complainants also not availing any services by making payment or remuneration, in such circumstances, the relations between the parties cannot be said as ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’. It is also pointed out that the complainants have filed complaint against the third party, who is neither member nor service provider and failed to explain as to how this complaint is maintainable in the Consumer Forum. After considering the prayers which are made by the complainant in the present complaint, it is the considered opinion of this Forum that, the prayers which are made in the present complaint are not within the purview of jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. In the result this Forum answers the points accordingly and pass following order-

                                        :- ORDER :-

1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. As per peculiar circumstances there is no order as to costs.
3.  Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of Order. Else those will be destroyed.

         Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.

Place – Pune

Date – 03/07/2014