CASE NO. 260/2014

Shashi Rani  Vs  Ram Gopal Sharma

10/09/2014

Present: - A.R. of Complainant.

The case of the complaint is that she had booked a plot of 100 sq. mtr. In Saraswati Kunj Society vide membership No.324 dated 25.7.1998 and deposited share money and other charges.  It is alleged that despite of many reminders plot has not been delivered despite lapse of 16 years.  It is prayed that OP may be instructed to provide details of scheme of the society. 

2.     First of all, the complainant has not placed on record terms and condition of the booking stipulating at the time for delivery of the plot.  O.P allegedly received an amount of Rs.500/- and complainant has placed on record the receipt but no agreement has been placed on record showing as to what were the stipulated terms and condition of allotment of the plot and time of delivery.  The record only shows that he is a member of the society.  In the absence of any agreement complainant cannot say as to what was the deficiency of service when the amount was deposited in 1998.  In the absence of any stipulation, the land was required to be allotted immediately.  Secondly, complainant has filed the complaint after 16 years.  Therefore, the complaint is time barred.  Thirdly, no relief as claimed by complainant can be granted nor O.P can be directed to provide the details of the scheme along with society registration Number.  Complaint does not disclose the consumer dispute as complainant has not alleged as to how OP violating the terms and condition. Finally, the complaint is covered u/sec 70 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act. 2003 which provides that any dispute between a member and Cooperative Society shall be referred to the Registrar Cooperative Society for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of a disputes between cooperative society and its member.  The complaint can be decided only by Arbitration by the Registrar of Cooperative Society and the jurisdiction of the forum stands barred.

3.     In General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Anr. Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.09.2009. It has been held that Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the Mobile service provider and customer and the same has to be referred to arbitration as per provision of Tele Communication Act.  On the basis of this authority and on analogy when there is specific provision which provides that dispute between Corporative Society and its member shall be decided by arbitration, by Registrar of Corporative Society, in our view this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  Complaint is, therefore dismissed.  A copy of order be given to the complainant.  File be consigned to record room.     

  President                          Member                         Member