Complainant present Lrd. Adv. Kale

Opponents through Lrd. Adv. Chougule

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President              Place   :  PUNE

                                                   J U D G M E N T

       09/06/2014                                                                 

            This complaint is filed by the consumer against the office bearer of the housing society for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts are as follows,

1]       The complainant is a medical practitioner by profession.  He is practicing at Hadapsar since 1980.  He is founder member of the society since its inception.  He is also share holder.  He was office bearer of the society till 8/4/2007.  He had resigned from the office, as he was unable to do the conveyance deed for the society.  It is the case of the complainant that the opponent no. 1 and 2 are the Chairman and Secretary of the society, which is situated at Ramtekadi Road, Pune – 13.  He has further contended that he had sent letters to the opponents dated 27/11/2007, 13/07/2008, 5/8/2008 and 5/1/2009, but the opponents have refused to accept those letters and neglected to take necessary steps for the conveyance deed for the society.  It is further contended that on 10/11/2008 there was annual general meeting of the society.   The agenda was circulated to the members.  In that meeting opponents prohibited and debarred the complainant for the meeting.   Resolution, which were passed in the meeting were not communicated to the complainant.  It was also decided in the meeting that correspondence made by the complainant will not be entertained.  According to the complainant, the opponents are not using powers and functioning as per section 73 (1-AB) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and that amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant has claimed cost of this complain Rs. 1,000/- and compensation for mental torture to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.

2]      The opponents have resisted the complaint by filing written version.  They have denied the contents of the complaint in toto.  It is the case of the opponent that the complaint is not maintainable, as the relation between the parties is not as per ‘consumer’ and the ‘service provider’.  They are not providing any service to the complainant by accepting any remuneration.  The main grievance of the complainant is that the opponents are not using powers and functioning as per the section 73 (1-AB) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.  The complainant has failed to establish that the opponents have caused deficiency in service.  It is the case of the opponents that this dispute shall be decided either by the Registrar of Co-operative Society or the Co-operative court.  As there is no deficiency in service.  Both the opponents have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3]      After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-

REASONS    :-

4]      It is not in dispute that the complainant is a member of the housing society and the opponent no. 1 and 2 are the Chairman and Secretary of the said society.  It is the case of the complainant that the opponents are not using powers as well as doing duties, which were entrusted with them under section 73 (1-AB) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.  According to the opponents, the complainant himself was the office bearer of the society.  He himself has resigned from the office.  He never paid sinking fund and became defaulter.  He had no right to file the present complaint, as relation between them are not as ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’.  The main grievance of the complainant is that the opponents are not using their power as per the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and they have not made efforts for executing conveyance deed.  But he has failed to establish that this fact amounts to deficiency in service.  In fact, the complainant has to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the irregularities, if any carried by the opponents.  It is also contended by the complainant that the opponents have not executed indemnity bond, which is required under section 73 (1-AB) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.  It is pointed out by the opponent that subsequently they have executed those bonds and even though they have not executed the same, that does not amount to deficiency in service.  At the most, they can be debarred from taking part in the proceeding.  By any stretch of imagination it can not be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponents.  Hence this Forum pass the following order.

                               O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed with no

order as to the costs.

                   2.       Copies of this order be furnished to

the parties free of cost.

3.       Parties  are directed to collect the sets, which were provided for Members within one month from the date of order, otherwise those will be destroyed.