Maharashtra

Chandrapur

CC/16/90

Sau Sindhubai Namdeorao Upare At Chandrapur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gramin Grunirman Sahakari Santh Padoli - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Hurde

26 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
CHANDRAPUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/90
( Date of Filing : 02 Sep 2016 )
 
1. Sau Sindhubai Namdeorao Upare At Chandrapur
chandrapur
chandrapur
maharshtra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Gramin Grunirman Sahakari Santh Padoli
Ramnagar chandrapur
chandrapur
mahrashtra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Atul D.Alsi PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Kirti Vaidya Gadgil MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Kalpana Jangade Kute MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 26 Dec 2018
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER

(Passed on 26 /12/2018)

PER SHRI.ATUL D.ALSI, PRESIDENT.

         The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 for non execution of sale deed of plot by the OP and praying for execution of sale deed or in the alternative,  to pay its cost of Rs.14,53,500/- as per market rate prevailing as on 2/9/2016 alongwith 18% interest and further claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental torture and Rs.20,000/-towards cost of proceeding.

2.   Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the OP is a registered cooperative Housing Society. The complainant became member of the OP society by paying Rs.250/- towards Membership fee and share capital on 18/11/1990. The OP society agreed to sell plot bearing No.13 admeasuring 150 sq.mt. to the complainant from its layout at Mouza Padoli/Kosara, Ghugus Survey No.20/3, Tah.& Distt.Chandrapur. The complainant was allotted the plot by lottery system. Accordingly, the OP society handed over possession of the plot and also the right to commence construction thereon in favour of husband of the complainant on 28/4/1991. However, despite of several requests by the complainant, the OP refused to execute sale deed of the plot in her favour. Hence the complainant issued notice to the OP on 11/5/2016 but the OP, in its notice reply dated 16/6/2016, intimated the complainant that her membership has been terminated due to non payment of monthly subscription fees, membership fees and development and other necessary charges, as per bye laws of the society. Despite of service of notice the OP failed to execute sale deed till filing of the complaint. This act on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.   The complaint is admitted and notices were served on the OPs. The OP filed its reply and thereby denied allegations against them and submitted that the OP society is a registered cooperative society under Cooperative Societies Act,1960 having registration No.310 having its own bye laws.  The complainant failed to pay OP societie’s monthly subscription fees, membership fees and development and other necessary charges, as per bye laws of the society. The complainant did not turn up for execution of sale deed of the plot since year 1990 and she also failed to deposit outstanding amount of plot and other incidental charges even after several reminders were served to her.  Hence her membership has been terminated due to non payment of these charges as per Rule 56(6) of Bye Laws of the society. Hence the complainant is no more a member of the OP society and as such, is having no right as against the OP society. The complainant is not entitled to any plot, compensation and cost. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present petition. The complaint has been filed way beyond the period of limitation and is hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.

4.      We have gone through the complaint, written versions filed by OP , documents and WNA filed by the parties. We have also heard the oral arguments advanced by parties. Following issues appear for our consideration.

         Issues                                           Finding

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer ?            Yes

2.  Whether  there is deficiency in service on the

    part of OP ?                                           No

3.  What order ?                              As per final order..

As to issue No.1

5.   The complainant became member of the OP society by paying Rs.250/- towards Membership fee and share capital on 18/11/1990. The OP society agreed to sell plot bearing No.13 admeasuring 150 sq.mt. to the complainant from its layout at Mouza Padoli/Kosara, Ghugus Survey No.20/3, Tah.& Distt.Chandrapur. The complainant was allotted the plot by lottery system.  Hence the complainant availed the Service of OP society on payment. Therefore, the complainant has consumable interest and he is Consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Hence the issue has been decided accordingly.

As to issue No. 2

6.      The complainant has not filed any written agreement with OP in respect of sale of plot on record. The complainant in her letter dated 10 July,2015 addressed to the OP, has clearly mentioned that since becoming shareholder of the OP society on 18/11/1990, the complainant could not respond to repeated requests made by the President of the OP society with regard to getting the sale deed executed by paying dues.  She has specifically admitted in that letter that the transaction could not be completed due to personal difficulties on the part of complainant herself. The complainant, then, after a period of more than 25 years from becoming member of the OP society, issued legal notice to the OP for execution of sale deed. However, the said letter and notice are way beyond the period of limitation to execute the sale deed. The issuance of notice can’t extend the period of limitation to agitate the claim. There is no evidence to show that the complainant has paid the balance amount of plot. Therefore, denial membership and allotment of plot by the OPs does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 & 2. Therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed.

As to issue No. 3

7.     In view of our findings to point Nos.1 2 above, we pass the following order..

Final order

1. The Complaint is dismissed without cost.

 

2. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

 

(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute)  (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil) (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

          Member              Member                  President

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Atul D.Alsi]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Kirti Vaidya Gadgil]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Kalpana Jangade Kute]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.