Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
Heard Appellant in person.
(1) This appeal is filed by original Complainant whose Complaint No.573/2009 has been dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Pune vide its order dated 5th October, 2010.
(2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:
Complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent Co-operative Society and had impleaded Shri B.R. Dhende, Secretary of the Society as opponent. According to Appellant, husband of deceased Padmaja Kalekar died at Mumbai on 02.03.2000. Complainant had filed an application on 18.08.2008 praying that the said flat in question should be transferred and mutated in his name and share certificate also be issued in his name. Along with application Complainant had produced no objection certificate of his two sons. Complainant waited for reasonable time to take appropriate action under the Co-operative Societies Act. The office bearers of the Opponent avoided to take appropriate action. Ultimately Complainant’s son was required to spend certain amount for publishing the notice in daily news paper. Complainant produced the affidavit duly notarized before the notary. The Complainant prayed that he should be paid compensation of `5,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the Society. The Complainant had also grievance that Opponent Society had not provided adequate water to the flat in question.
(3) Opponent Society filed written statement and denied allegations made by the Complainant. According to Opponent the Complainant’s wife had died on 02.03.2000 at Mumbai and an intimation of the death of Complainant’s wife was not given to the Society within specified period of six months as provided under the relevant section of the Co.operative Societies Act. The Society pleaded that Complainant had threatened the office bearers of the Society of dire consequences. The Complainant was called upon to produce duly notarized affidavit and to publish notice in accordance with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act in daily newspaper. The Society thereafter had passed resolution on 18.08.2009 that his application for transferring his name in respect of flat held by his wife was allowed. The Complainant was therefore directed to pay certain amount towards transfer charges and admission charges. Said charges had not been paid by the Complainant. So, Society pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with costs.
(4) On the basis of documents and affidavit placed on record, the District Forum noted in its order observed that only after receipt of the letters from the Sub-Registrar, Pune, the name of the Complainant/appellant had been mutated in the society’s register and he had been issued share certificate. Under the law if a member dies, within six months his legal heir or the nominee of the deceased flat purchaser has to inform the Society about the death of existing member and about the fact that he is nominee of the deceased flat purchaser. In this behalf within six months Complainant had not intimated about the death of his wife. After 8 years he moved Society and he expected Society to act within 90 days period as stipulated in the relevant section of Co-operative Societies Act. The District Forum therefore found no substance in this complaint. Another grievance of the Complainant was that he had not been provided with adequate water. The District Forum found that he was mainly residing in Mumbai and therefore, allegation of failure to supply of water was devoid of any substance and as such the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against such dismissal of complaint, the complainant has filed this appeal.
(5) We heard Appellant in person. None is present for the Respondent. We have perused the impugned judgement.
(6) We are finding that there is no substance in the appeal preferred by the original Complainant. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint observing that Complainant was expecting Society to act within 90 days period as stipulated in the relevant section of Co-operative Societies Act, whereas he had taken eight years to intimate about his being nominee of his deceased wife. Society no doubt took near about two years, but ultimately transferred the flat in the name of the Complainant and he has been also issued share certificate despite the fact that he has not paid transfer charges. As regards inadequate water supply to his flat, the District Forum found that there was no evidence adduced by the Complainant in this behalf and therefore, the District Forum appears to have rightly dismissed the complaint. We are also finding no substance in the appeal and pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
