This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 06-03-12               in the presence of Sri P. Veeraiah, advocate for the complainant and of Sri G. Srinivas, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite party to allot a plot after receiving Rs.47,000/- being cost of the plot; Rs.40,000/- as damages towards mental and physical strain on account of deficiency of opposite parties and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The opposite party along with other employees of Guntur Municipal Corporation formed a society under the name and style of the Guntur Municipal Superior Employees Co-operative House Building Society, Guntur with the object of allotting house plots to the Municipal employees after acquisition.   The complainant paid Rs.110/- on             24-10-94 towards membership fees and deposited Rs.3,000/- on the same date for which the opposite parties issued receipts.  The opposite party informed the complainant that he will inform him (complainant) after acquisition of suitable land in respect of allotment of plots and at that time the complainant has to pay necessary amount towards costs of the plot.   The complainant has been waiting with a fond hope that a plot would be allotted to him.   Whenever approached the opposite party has been making representation that in due course plot will be allotted.   The complainant believed the said representation of the opposite party.   In this regard, the complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party on 23-01-09 requesting allotment of plot and his willingness to pay final payment towards costs of the plot.   The complainant recently came to know that the said society allotted 50% of plots to others who are kith and kin of Secretary of the opposite party to the detriment of the complainant and others. The complainant also learnt that the opposite party illegally accumulated lakhs of money by allotting house plots to non members of the society.   The opposite party is under an obligation to allot house plot having received the membership amount as well as initial deposit of Rs.3,000/- on 29-10-04.  Non allotment of house plot by the opposite party amounted to deficiency of service.   The complainant is intending to take civil and criminal action against the opposite party in respect of misappropriation of property belonging to the society.  The opposite party did not give reply to the notice issued by the complainant and it amounted to gross negligence and willful deficiency of service.  On  06-03-11 the Secretary of the opposite party arranged a function in respect of the Guntur Municipal Employees Colony Namakarana Mahotsavam in the presence of Minister for Housing, District Collector and other officials.   The opposite party did not send invitation to the complainant, which clearly showed that the opposite party neglected the claim of the complainant.   The above conduct of the opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant is not a consumer.   The complaint is barred by limitation.   The Guntur Municipal Superior Employees Co-operative House Building Society was formed in 1976.  The complainant paid membership fee of Rs.110/- and initial deposit of Rs.3,000/- on 24-10-94.   The said society issued several notices to its members from time to time who have paid initial deposit for subsequent deposit of payments to acquire land from private parties besides reminding them personally.   Till 20-01-11 the complainant never put any request or demand for allotment of plot.   The complainant never met either Secretary or any Executive Member of the society for allotment of plot and kept silent all these 17 years and thus became a defaulter.   By the time of receipt of notice the society has processed registration of plots for those who have paid total cost of site as decided by the executive body and general body meeting of plot holders.   The total land available with the society had been allotted to plot holders.   No land is available with the society for further allotment.   The complainant paid deaf ear and ignored the notices and personal requests for payment.   The society has not allotted any plots to its non members.   One K.T. Narayana Murthy, T.G.K. Prasad, S. Narasimha Rao and K.V. Rama Rao got back their money together with interest @9% p.a., by way of cheques as they failed to pay further payments.   The complainant did not put up letter for refund of initial deposit.   The society is ready to refund the initial deposit of Rs.3,000/- along with interest to the complainant.  The society allotted plots as per general body resolution No.4 dated                      22-01-06.   The invitation of namakarana mahotsavam was sent to plot holders only.   The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and are invented by the complainant to suit his claim.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-14 and B-1 to B-15 on behalf of complainant and opposite party were marked respectively.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
5. To what relief?

6.    Admitted facts in this case are these:

          a.   The complainant is a member of the Guntur Municipal                               Superior Employees Co-operative House Building Society,                Guntur.

        b. The complainant paid Rs.110/- as a membership fees                          (Ex.A-5).

        c.   The complainant on 24-10-94 initially deposited Rs.3,500/-                 (Ex.A-4).

        d. The complainant issued notice to the opposite party on                                20-01-11 (Ex.A-6&2), for which the opposite party did                                 not give reply.

        e.  The President and Secretary of said society executed sale                 deeds (Exs.A-6 to A-9)

        f.   Namakarana Mahotsavam of the Guntur Municipal Employees                  Colony took place on 06-03-2011 (Ex.A-3)

7.    POINT No.1:-   The dispute is not regarding the management of affairs of Guntur Municipal Superior Employees Co-operative House Building Society, Guntur.  As the dispute is regarding allotment of plot to the complainant by the said society we are of the view that the complainant is a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act.

8.     In Secretary vs. Thiru Murugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs and others                               2004 (1) CPJ SC (1)

        “In Dhulabhai case consideration was whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was excluded.   Propositions (1) and (2) indicate that where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the jurisdiction of Civil Courts must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the Civil Courts would normally do in a suit. Further, where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.   The remedies that are available to an aggrieved party under the 1986 Act are wider. For instance in addition to granting a specific relief the Forums under the 1986 Act have jurisdiction to award compensation for the mental agony, suffering, etc., which possibly could not be given under the Act in relation to dispute under Section 90 of the Act.   Merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the members and the management of the society under the Act and Forums are provided, it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the Forums under the 1986 Act expressly and intentionally to serve a definite cause in terms of the objects and reasons of the Act reference to which is already made above when the decision of Dhulabhai’s case was rendered the provisions similar to 1986 Act providing additional remedies to parties were neither available nor considered.   If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted it leads to taking away the additional remedies and Forums expressly provided under the 1986 Act, which is not acceptable”.

            Taking a clue from the above decision rendered by the Supreme Court we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

9.   POINT No.2:-      The registry raised an objection on the aspect of limitation under Section 24 (A) of CP Act as the cause of action arose in 1994.    For the said objection the complainant represented as mentioned infra:

                     “Even cause of action arise in the year 1994 plot         allotments and work progress was going on this year for that the complaint was within limitation.”

10.   Considering the said representation this Forum numbered the complaint as the aspect of limitation being a mixed question of fact and law.  The opposite party relied on Ex.A-1 to corroborate its contention that the complaint was barred by time.  On the other hand the complaint relied on Ex.A-3 dated 06-03-11 published on 20-02-11.  

11.   Ex.A-3 invitation was published on 20-02-11 by the Secretary of the Guntur Municipal Employees Colony on the eve of ‘Colony Namakarana Mahotsavam’.   Ex.A-1 is the office copy of notice dated 23-01-09 together with postal receipt.  Ex.A-1 is extracted below for better appreciation:

                “In continuation of the reference cited and submit that I have paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards initial deposit for allotment of plot.   I approached you in person several times for allotment of plot.   I requested to receive final payment of deposited amount.

                You have dodged my request.   My request ended in futile.  Now you are saying at present there is no vacancy.  It is contrary to natural justice and violation of cannons of law.  I am serving the Guntur Municipal Corporation from the last two decades with a fond of hope to construct a house to hide my head together with my family members.   For this reason only I joined in the Guntur Municipal Superior Employees complaint-operative house building society Ltd., to secure a house plot. 

                Hence I request you the authority to kindly allot me house plot and I also request to receive my final payment, soon after hearing from you I will pay the amount”.     

12.  The contents of Ex.A-1 leads us to draw an inference that the opposite party informed him about no vacancy even prior to 23-01-09.   It is well settled in law when once limitation starts it will not stop.   In this case the limitation started on 23-01-09 in the least as rightly contended by the opposite party.   The complainant for the reasons best known to him took the calculated risk of limitation on the impression that Ex.A-3 will save limitation without taking recourse to section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act.   Exs.A-7 to A-9 sale deeds in no way help the complainant in view of Ex.A-1.In our opinion Ex.A-3 will not save limitation as it started on 23-01-09 in the least.   The complaint ought to have been filed on or before 23-01-11.   As the complaint was filed on 08-04-11 we are of the considered view that the complaint is barred by limitation.    For the discussion made supra we answer this point against the complainant.

13.  POINTS 3 & 4:-   The complainant filed IA 492 of 2011 seeking a direction to the opposite party to produce 1) Byelaws of the society, 2)Minutes book, 3) Audit Report from the beginning, 4) List of members in the society till date, 5) Receipts of members who paid amounts to the society, 6) Documents pertaining to the purchase of land for the purpose of allotment of plots, 7) Approved lay out plan,  and 8) Alleged notices sent to the complainant by the opposite party.  As a reply the opposite party filed Exs.B-1 to B-14.  The opposite party did not file copy of sale deeds through whom the site for allotment had been purchased and the approved lay out.   No adverse inference can be drawn as contended by the complainant for not producing those documents in view of our findings on point No.2.

14.  It is the case of the complainant that he has not paid the remaining amount towards cost of the plot.   No prudent person will keep quite for such a long time of sixteen years.   The complainant failed to initiate action against the said society in time even after   Ex.A-1.   Under those circumstances, we opine that the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.   The complainant is always entitled to initiate suitable action against the opposite party if felt cheated or the funds of the said society have been misappropriated.   We therefore answer these points against the complainant.

15.  POINT No.5:-  In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

          Typed to my dictation by Junior-Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 16^th day of March, 2012.

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

   DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party :

                                                                                                                       PRESIDENT