Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/410

AMAR SINHG - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAN VIHAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETUY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Arguments: 22.04.2016

Date of Decision: 02.05.2016

 

 

First Appeal No.410/2009

(Arising out of the order dated 08.01.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.460/2007 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (East)

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

Shri Amar Singh,

S/o Late Shri Devi Dass,

R/o 1360, Bagichi Tansukh Rai,

Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.

                              …..........Appellant

 

Versus

 

 

Jan Vihar Coop. Housing Society Ltd.,

Through its Secretary,

Sh. R.B. Sharma,

Liaison Office: A-12, 3^rd Floor,

Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi -110092.

 

ALSO AT:

C-91, 1^st Floor, DLF Colony,

Bhapura Chowok, Ghaziabad, UP

                                                ….….....Respondent

               

CORAM

Shri O. P. Gupta

 

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)  

 

 

1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2010 passed by District Forum (East) in CC No.460/2007, dismissing the complaint, the present appeal has been preferred.
2. Complainant applied for membership in OP Society, OP accepted the application and asked the complainant to deposit the cost of land in four quarterly instalments @ Rs.12,100/- per quarter starting from 10.04.1990. Complainant deposited 03 instalments. OP vide letter dated 19.05.2006 asked the complainant to appear before the Executive Committee on 04.06.2006 for making submissions about the outstanding dues. The complainant participated in the said meeting, OP asked the complainant to pay outstanding dues within next three weeks; otherwise his membership would be terminated. The dues were not paid and membership of the complainant was terminated vide letter dated 24.06.2006. OP sent refund cheque. Complainant challenged the termination of his membership as being arbitrary and contrary to the assurances given in meeting with Executive Committee on 04.06.2006 as OP wanted to gain illegally as the cost of the land had gone up substantially. Complainant sought direction to quash the letter dated 24.06.2006 and to intimate the amount payable by the complainant. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- besides litigation costs.
3. OP filed its written statement stating that the complainant was not a consumer because he was member of a cooperative society. The business of society was controlled and manager under UP Cooperative Society Act, 1965, which expressly provide that Registrar of the Cooperative Society would decide the dispute between a member and the Society and there is a provision of appeal against the cancellation of the membership. The complainant was to deposit instalment on 10.04.1990, 10.07.1990, 10.10.1990 and 10.01.1991 whereas he deposited the same on 02.05.1990, 15.06.1990, 31.07.1991 and 26.08.1991. The complainant had suppressed proceedings which took place between 18.02.1998 to 18.05.2006 and the decision taken by General Body and Executive Committee which were informed to the members of the society.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and evidence. OP also filed its evidence. After going through the material on record, the District Forum found did not find any valid reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Society as per their rules especially because decision of cooperative society is taken collectively for which all members are responsible equally and if any member has grievance, he should file a case before appropriate forum like Registrar of Cooperative society.
5. In appeal, the grievance of the appellant is that remedy under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is an additional remedy. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  Counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon provision of Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Society Act and submitted that it not only provide remedy of arbitration but specifically exclude jurisdiction of civil and criminal court. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments and find that there is not much difference between barring the jurisdiction or providing remedy of arbitration, both have the same effect.
6. In Secretary Stay Well Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board Nagpur, 1991(1) CPR 129, complaint  under Consumer Protection Act was entertained against a cooperative society. In K. Pudhur Primary Agriculture Cooperative Bank Ltd. V. M. Andithewar, 1991(2) CPR 576, it was held by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Tamil Nadu that member of a cooperative society was a consumer so far as society is concerned. Similar view was taken in Agra Development Authority v. Murari Lal Goel, 1995(1) CPJ 213 (UP), Orissa State Housing Board v. D. Satyanamrayana Rao, 1994(2) CPJ 332, Orissa, Lakshmi Vaidyanathan v. Hoysala Building Development Co. Ltd., 1992(3) CPJ 642(KTK). National Commission also took the same view in Lt. Col. B.L. Gupta v. Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organisation III(1994) CPJ 40(NC).
7. By now the law is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. V. N.K. Modi AIR 1997 SC 533 has held that remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to other remedies. Section 34 of the old Arbitration Act was not a bar. Same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-op. Agricultural. Credit. Society. v. M. Lalitha, AIR 2004 SC 448. Decision of National Commission in Telangana Cooperative Society v. Vandana Sharma IV (2009) CPJ 161 is authority for the same preposition.
8. National Seeds corporation v. M. Madhusudan Reddy 2012 (2) SCC 506 took the view that arbitration clause is not a bar for Consumer Protection Act. To the same effect is decision of National Commission in DLF Ltd. v. Mridul Society Pvt. Ltd., RP 412/2011 decided on 13.05.201.
9. Counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 90. That was in altogether different context. It pertains to a dispute under Indian Telegraph Act and arises out of a dispute between a telegraph authority and service provider. The same was not applicable to the present case.
10. As a result of the above discussion, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. Appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the matter afresh.
11. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 31.05.2016.
12. Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy be also sent to the District Forum(East) for information.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

Tri