Haryana

Panchkula

CC/258/2014

RAM NIWAS SHEORAN AND OTHERS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA VIDHAN SABHA EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                            

                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	258 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	09.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	06.05.2016

                                                                                               

 

1.       Maj (Retd.) Ram Niwas Sheoran son of late Shri Har Narayan, resident of Flat No.303, GH-2, Sector 24, Panchkula (Haryana).

2.       Col. (Retd.) Ram Kumar son of late Shri Mala Ram resident of Flat No.308, GH-2, Sector 24, Panchkula (Haryana).

3.       Smt.Kamla Chaudhary w/o Sh.Raghubir Chaudhary  resident of Flat No.302, GH-2 Sector 24, Panchkula (Haryana).

4.       Shri Tirlok Depta son of Shri Daulat Ram presently resident of H.No.1, Type-4, (Near Hanuman Tample), Forest Colony, Khalini, Shimla.

5.       Shri Harish Gupta son of late Shri Gian Chand Gupta presently resident of H.No.3, Type-4, Block-V, Forest Colony, Khalini, Shimla.

6.       Shri Rajender Paul son of late Shri Gangu Ram, presently resident of H.No.884, Sector 27, Panchkula.

                                                                                       ….Complainants

 

Versus

 

1.       The Haryana Vidhan Sabha Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited GH-2 Sector 24, Panchkula, through its Administrator, Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Panchkula.

2.       The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Panchkula.

3.       The Estate Officer, HUDA Sector 6, Panchkula.

4.       Shri Yashvir Singh resident of H.No.11, Sector 23, Chandigarh-160023.

5.       Smt.Beermati w/o Sumit Kumar resident of H.No.1019 Sector 11, Chandigarh,160011.

6.       Shri Daya Nand, Inspector Audit (Retired) Cooperative Societies, House No.2919, Gali No.1 Shiv Colony, Karnal (Haryana).

7.       M/s Sindhu Housing Construction Pvt. Limited Flat NO.46, Pocket D-10 Sector 7, Rohini- Delhi 110085, through Sh.J.P.Sindhu

IInd Address: M/s Sindhu Housing Construction Pvt.Limited through Sh.Yashvir Singh #3813, Chandiogarh-160022.

                                                                       ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

Before:                  Mr.Dharampal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Pankaj Chandgotia, Advocate for the complainant.

                             None for the Ops No.1 to 3, 6 and 7.

                             Mr.Jaswant Singh, Adv., for the Ops No.4 and 5.

 

ORDER

(Dharampal, President)

 

1.                          The complaint has been filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that they were members and allottees of flats in Society by complying with the various formalities. Thereafter, the OP No.1-Society issued various demand letters from time to time to the allottees. The Name Change Fee i.e. the fees of new members was Rs.20,000/- which was to be deposited with HUDA. The Society was entitled to 20% rebate in cost of land from HUDA upon timely completion. Further, the Society also took charge for lifts, generator, light distribution system, transformer etc. and the HUDA would not issue possession certificate without installation of these items. Thereafter, various deficiencies and defects have been noticed, which were common to the Society as a whole and some were specific to individual flats. Those deficiencies were duly tabulated in a Committee meeting of the Op No.1 and the onus to remove those deficiencies lies on the contractor i.e. OP No.6 but it was delaying the same. The individual flat owners have got the deficiencies & defects completed and corrected by themselves at their own costs and the cost came to approximately Rs.50,000/- each which is liable to be reimbursed by the Ops. The conveyance deed of the land was yet to be executed in favour of the Society OP No.1 by Op o.3. Although the provisional occupation certificate had been issued by the Op No.3 and the final occupation certificate was yet to be issued by the Op No.3. Due to various deficiencies, more particularly the non-installation of generator set which was a mandatory requirement by the Op No.3 and the same were to be removed & installation and work completed by the Op No.1 and Op No.6. Even the land cost was pending which payable to HUDA. It was the fault and deliberate manipulation of the private Ops that they had not paid the same, even though it has been collected from the members. The private Ops were liable to make good the loss on that account. In the absence of issue of conveyance deed and final occupation certificate, the status of the complainants as allottees and owners of their respective flats was in jeopardy. This act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure C-A, Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7.

2.                The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that the Op No.1 was elected as President of Haryana Vidhan Sabha Employees Co-operative Group Housing Society by its members in general boarding meeting held on 11.05.2008. It is submitted that all the members of the Society had taken possession of their respective flats from the previous managements of the Society. It is submitted that the Op No.1 tried his best to run the affairs of maintenance of society but a section of members did not pay monthly maintenance charges to the management committee which became difficult to run the affairs of the society. It is submitted that the Op No.1 had resigned from the post of President on 29.12.2011. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In evidence the, the OP No.1 has tendered documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/5.

3.                The Op No.2 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of Section 124 and 128 of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and according to societies bye-law clause No.61 & 62. It is submitted that some complainants in the office of Hon’ble Lokayukta, Haryana has filed complaint No.237 of 2010 which was decided on 02.09.2013 and the order is as under:-

“as part of my order, be placed before the General Body of the Society in its meeting in accordance with the rules and regulations on the subject within three months. All the proposals submitted by the Assistant Registrar in her report dated 02.07.2013 shall be part of agenda of the General Body meeting and whatever decision will be taken in the meeting that will be binding upon the parties for being carried out to redress the grievances involved in this matter.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

It is submitted that after order dated 02.09.2013, Op No.2 several time called General Body Meetings but non-cooperation by the members of the society, the quorum of General Body Meeting could not be completed. It is submitted that some complainants also filed a Civil Writ Petition No.20083 of 2014 on same grounds which is pending before the Hon’ble Haryana and Punjab High Court. It is submitted that some members of the society requested to Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Naraingarh for appointment of the administrator in the Society. Thereafter, Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Naraingarh appointed administrator for affairs of the society and day to day work. But presently, there is no Managing Committee or Board of Administrator in the Society. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In evidence, the OP No.2 has not tendered any evidence after availing last opportunity and the evidence of the OP No.2 closed by court order.

4.                The Op No.3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.3 had floated a scheme in the year 1998 for allotment of group housing sites. It is submitted that the OpNo.1 applied for allotment of a site of 4000 sq. mtrs with proposed density of 240 PPA having 48 members, thereafter, letter of intent was issued vide memo N26.03.1999 to the Op No.1. The Op No.1 submitted agreement dated 18.08.1999 and other documents. It is submitted that the allotment letter No.18597 dated 18.11.1999 of GHS No.2, Sector-24, Panchkula measuring 4000 sq. mtrs was issued in favour of Op No.1. It is submitted that the development works were completed at site and therefore, possession of the site was offered on 02.02.2001. It is submitted that the revised schedule of payment was issued vide memo No.4622 dated 05.05.2001 and the possession was taken on 06.11.2001. It is submitted that the allottee society requested for permission to raise construction of 40 units with area of 150 sq. mtrs and the allottee was asked to deposit Rs.1,20,000/- towards change in membership.   It is submitted that after examination, the Chief Administrator, HUDA granted permission to the society for reducing the members from 48 to 40 and to change the size of dwelling unit from 110 sq. mtr to 150 sq. mtr and vide letter No.2693 dated 27.03.2002 permission was granted. Accordingly, the revised agreement was also executed. It is submitted that the allottee did not deposit the amount in time due towards the cost of the plot and the reason was given for membership problem. It is submitted that the society-OP No.1 requested for grant of rebate of 20% which was inadvertently allowed on 12.08.2004 by the then Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula though he was not competent to grant the rebatewhich was allowed and the benefit of rebate of Rs.17,87,200/- was given by way of waiver which was adjusted in the accounts of the society on 02.09.2011 w.e.f. 12.08.2004. It is submitted that the matter was referred to the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula for ex-post facto approval of grant of rebate. Meantime, the society was issued a letter no.19042 dated 14.12.2010 informing that dues were pending against the society and also to submit the revised L form. It is submitted that as per section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is submitted that the complainants being not the allottee of HUDA have no right to claim any rebate as it is only the society which could raise such an issue. It is submitted that there is an inter-se dispute between the members of the society & society and the competent authority to adjudicate the same is the Registrar, Cooperative Society, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the present complaint is time barred. It is submitted that fee of Rs.20,000/- was chargeable for change in membership for first time. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In evidence the, the OP No.3 has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure R3/A, Annexure R3/1 to R3/3.

5.                The Op No.4 and 5 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objection and submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the present complaint is time barred as the flat was allotted on 29.08.2004 and the possession was delivered in the year 2005 whereas the complaint has been filed on 09.12.2014. It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable because there is an arbitration clause in the bye laws of the society and the society & OP No.1 has already filed its claim before the Arbitrator which is pending there. It is submitted that the complainants have already filed CWP No.20083 of 2014 before the Hon’ble High Court on the same grounds which is still pending. It is submitted that some complainants in the office of Hon’ble Lokayukta, Haryana has filed complaint No.237 of 2010 which was decided on 02.09.2013. It is submitted that after order dated 02.09.2013, Op No.2 called several time General Body Meetings but non-cooperation by the members of the society, the quorum of General Body Meeting could not be completed and hence no decision has been taken. It is submitted that as per re-audit report dated 26.05.2015, none of the complainants and also the other members of the society had deposited the requisite fee to get the transferred in the records of HUDA. It is submitted that In the letter dated 01.03.2004, it was mentioned about the provisions of facilities to be provided in the society but no amount was deposited by any member of the society including the complainants towards purchase & installation of generator set. It is submitted that the Op No.1 had filed an Arbitration Case against Op No.7 for defects in construction. It is submitted that the members of the society including complainants had not deposited any amount for the execution of the conveyance deed. It is submitted that the HUDA granted the rebate of 20% of the members of society on 08.09.2011 in land cost but charged interest on the rebate amount. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.4 and 5 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In evidence the, the OPs No.4 and 5 has tendered affidavit, documents Annexure R4/A, R4/1 & R4/2.

6.                The Op No.6 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint in view of Section 124 and 128 of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 and according to societies. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.6 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In evidence, the OP No.6 has not tendered any evidence after availing last opportunity and the evidence of the OP No.6 closed by court order.

7.                The Op No.7 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that the Op No.7 had worked as a Construction Agency against valid contract with the Society. It is submitted that the Op No.7 was assigned civil work construction only which includes public work like water supply, sanitary and sewerage work and internal electrical work of flats. It is submitted that the construction work was awarded to Op No.7 by the society on 12.03.2002 and the work was completed on 25.08.2004, thereafter, the final bill was submitted on 02.01.2005 but the payment of final bill is awaited. It is submitted that on completion of work to the satisfaction of the society and after fulfilling the contractual obligations during defect liability period the Op No.7 left the site. It is submitted that the installation of D.G. set was not included in the contract. It is submitted that the Op No.7 completed the civil work which enabled the society to apply for occupation certificate which was issued by the Estate Officer. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.7 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In evidence, the OP No.6 has not tendered any evidence after availing last opportunity and the evidence of the OP No.7 closed by court order.

8.                          Learned counsel for the complainant and appearing Ops have been heard and case file has been perused carefully.

9.                          During the proceedings of the complaint learned counsel for the complainant has made a statement that he only press the relief against HUDA (OP No.3)  to the extent of grant of 20 % rebate on the enhanced cost of land and further he does not press the other relief against other Ops with liberty to seek alternate remedy before appropriate authorities or court of law.

10.                        Now, the question to be decided by this Forum is whether the complainants are entitled for the above said relief sought by them.

11.                        From the perusal of the record it is clear that The Haryana Vidhan Sabha Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited was allotted plot No.GH-2 Sector 24, Panchkula. Letter of intent was issued on 26.03.1999 to the above said society (OP No.1) The agreement alongwith other documents were submitted on 18.08.1999. The allotment letter of GHS No.2 Sector 24, Panchkula measuring 4000 square meters was issued on 18.11.1999. The possession of the site was offered on 02.02.2011 and the possession was taken by the society on 06.11.2011. The society requested for grant of rebate of 20 % which was allowed by the then Estate Officer, Panchkula on 12.08.2004, though he was not competent to grant the same. However,  the ex-post facto approval of the Administrator/ HUDA/ Chief Administrator was obtained and 20 % rebate was allowed in favour of the OP No.1. The benefit of the rebate of Rs.17,87,200/- was allowed which was adjusted in the account of the society on 02.09.2011 w.e.f. 12.08.2004. The complainants in their complaint have not mentioned as to on which date enhancement was demanded by the OP No.3 from the OP No.1. Although the enhancement of cost is part and parcel of the cost of the land of the site in question but the complainants have not mentioned on which date they applied for the rebate on the enhancement from the OP No.3.   It is strange that in para No.5 of the complaint, the complainants have mentioned that land cost is pending and payable to HUDA and on the other hand they have demanded rebate on the enhanced cost without having any authority. The complainants should have approached the society to take up the matter for the rebate with the HUDA, therefore we are in agreement with the stand taken by the OP No.3 in its reply that the complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint.  It was for the society (OP No.1) to submit L Form issued by Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Society, Panchkula (OP No.2) showing the names of the members of the society including complainants with the OP No.3. The Op No.3 vide letter No.19042 dated 14.12.2010 had intimated OP No.1 about the dues pending against society and also requested to submit revised L form.  Another surprising factor which this Forum has noticed that the complainants  are not sure whether they are members of the society or not as in the prayer clause  it has been mentioned that HUDA be directed to confirm whether the names of the complainants have been officially included in the HUDA records as members of the society. The complainants are not allottees of HUDA, therefore, they have no relation with the HUDA and the issue regarding membership of the complainants in the society was to be decided by the society (OP No.1) but the complainants did not press any relief against the OP No.1. From the material available on the case file it is ample clear that the matter in dispute is internal dispute of the members of the society and the members of the society including complainants have no relation with the HUDA as it was the society to take up the issue regarding grant of rebate etc. with the Estate Officer, HUDA (OP No.3).

12.                        From the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is ample clear that neither the complainants have cause of action to file the present complaint nor the complaint is maintainable, therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bearing their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

Announced

06.05.2016       S.P.ATTRI        ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                           MEMBER         MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                             

                                                               DHARAM PAL                                                                                     PRESIDENT