Advocate Jadhav for the Complainant
Advocate Garsole for the Opponents
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Dated-6th May, 2014
This complaint is filed by flat owner against the Co-operative Housing Society and its office bearers for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant has occupied flat No.114 in Opponent No.1 Co-Operative Housing Society which is situated at Bhandarkar Road, Pune 4. Complainant had sent letter to the Opponents on 29/4/2011 as regards maintenance charges of the society and letter dated 4/5/2011 as regards common areas of the society and redevelopment of the society. Those letters are neglected by the Society. The office bearers of the society had obtained Recovery Certificate u/s 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act against the Complainant on 12/6/2001. That Order was quashed and set aside by the Joint Registrar by Order dated 22/6/2007. This Joint Registrar had ordered for rehearing of the said proceeding before the Deputy Registrar. Opponents have not followed the Order of the Dy. Registrar. Opponents were expected to comply with the directions of the Dy. Registrar by giving certain documents to the complainant. But the Opponents have not provided those documents. Complainant has mainly filed present complaint for directing the Opponents to comply with the directions of the Dy. Registrar, to provide the documents within 7 days and conduct functioning of the society as per the bye-laws and provisions of law. The Complainant has also asked compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing deficiency in service.
[2] Opponents have resisted the complaint by filing application u/s 9(A) of C.P.C. It is the case of the Opponents that, Opponent is a Co-operative Housing Society which is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The relationship between the society and its members is not as consumer and service provider as member is the part and parcel of the society having its share in the society. Thus, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable in the present proceeding. The Co-operative Courts are established for adjudicating the dispute between the member and the housing society. The complainant is well aware that, he is governed by the Co-operative Societies Act, but still he has filed present complaint. According to the Opponents, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain present complaint and it should be dismissed.
[3] Complainant has filed reply to this Application in which he has denied that he is not a consumer. Complainant has prayed for dismissal of the Application.
[4] After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documentary evidence and hearing argument of both counsel, following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether the prayers claimed in the present complaint can be entertained by the Consumer Forum ? | In the negative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is dismissed. |
Reasons
As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2-
[5] The learned Advocate for the complainant argued before the Forum that, eventhough it is the dispute between the flat owner and the housing society, it falls within the ambit of the consumer transaction. The learned Advocate for complainant strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in II(2008) CPJ 114 (NC) between Raju Sitaram Landge v/s. Sadguru Park Co-Operative Hsg. Society & Ors. It has been observed in the said ruling that, the member of the co-operative housing society falls within the entity of being person and consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he can filed complaint in the Consumer Forum.
[6] However, it reveals from the prayers which have been made in the present complaint as regards directing society to comply with the directions issued by the Dy. Registrar and for providing the documents as well as for functioning of the Society in accordance with the provisions of law, do not fall within the purview of Consumer Forum. If the Opponents are not complying with the directions issued by the Dy. Registrar then the complainant has to knock the door of the said Forum as Consumer Forum is neither Appellant Authority nor the Executing Court for implementing the directions issued by the Dy. Registrar. It reveals from the record that the certificate which was obtained by the Opponents u/s 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was quashed by the Dy. Registrar and certain directions were given by the Dy. Registrar. It is the considered opinion of this Forum that, eventhough the relations between the complainant and the Opponents are consumer and service provider, still this complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and complainant has to approach the Co-operative Department for implementation of the directions issued by those Authorities. In the result, Application filed by the Opponent deserves to be allowed. This Forum answers the points accordingly and pass following order.
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of Order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place – Pune
Date – 06/05/2014
