Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 31/07/2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.696/2008, Ravindra Ramdas Mirajkar V/s. Shri Anant Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Kupwad and Ors., by District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (‘Forum’ below in short).  As per the impugned order the consumer complaint stood dismissed.  Feeling aggrieved, the original Complainant has filed this appeal.

(2)          It is the case of the Appellant that Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 – Shri Anant Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited Kupwad (Proposed) hereinafter referred to as “proposed society” and Respondent No.2 – Bharat Jagannath Patil, is its Chief Promoter.  It is further alleged by the Complainant that, Complainant wanted to become a member of the proposed Society and became the member accordingly.  The members of the Society initiated to purchase non-agricultural plot to be divided into the plots for its members and then to distribute the same amongst the members.  Complainant has contributed initially Rs.5,000/- on 26.12.1989 to get plot from non-agricultural land.  Thereafter, he further contributed Rs.2,000/- on 31/03/1991, on 24.07.1993 Rs.500/- and Rs.7,500/- on 05.08.1993, total amounting to Rs.15,000/-.  He was expected to get a plot belonging to the proposed society having area about 3000 sq.ft.  Respondent/Opposite Party No.3 – Bhimrao Babu Magdum is alleged to be the owner of the 3/A+3/B and Survey No.4/A.  Since, the Complainant did not get the plot, he gave notice on 20.09.2004 but in vain and hence, he filed dispute before the Cooperative Court at Sangli, bearing dispute No.822/2004 for getting vacant possession of the plot.  However, said dispute was withdrawn with a leave to file the same before the appropriate Court.  Thereafter this consumer complaint was filed on 05.07.2008.

(3)          Heard Mr.Tamhankar, Advocate for the Appellant and perused the record.

(4)          As far as Respondent/Opposite Party No.1, proposed Society is concerned, it is not a person within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such any consumer complaint against it is not tenable.

(5)          Furthermore, when the Complainant joined hands with the promoters of the proposed Society and became one of its promoter members, the Complainant certainly cannot claim any relationship as a consumer and service provider in between him and Chief Promoter of the proposed society.  For this reason also present one will not be a consumer dispute.

(6)          As far as Respondent No.1 and original Opposite Party No.3 is concerned, as revealed from record, the plot belonging to one Sarjerao Magdum and it was intended to be purchased and even Rs.60,000/- as collected from the Promoter members was paid to said Shri Sarjerao Magdum.  Shri Sarjerao Magdum is not a party in this dispute.  There was no transaction with Opposite Party No.3 – Bhimrao Babu Magdum.  If said Sarjerao failed to keep and maintain the contract of sale of land in favour of the proposed Society, certainly no consumer complaint can be filed against the Respondent/Opposite Parties.

(7)          The observation of forum below about continuous cause of action is not based upon the fact to which a reference is made earlier.  The transaction is of the year 1993, consumer complaint is filed in the year 2008, which is a belated action.

(8)          Thus, looking at the consumer complaint in any angle, the dismissal of consumer complaint cannot be faulted with.  Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Appeal is not admitted and thus, stands rejected.

    (ii)       No order as to costs.