DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Amarjit Gupta S/o Sh. Tarsem Kumar, resident of H.No. 48, Sec.27-A, Chandigarh,

                   ---Complainant

Vs

1.       The Chandigarh Sector 7, Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd., Plot No.4 (Site), Sector 48/C, Chandigarh, through its President.

2.       Registrar Cooperative Societies, U.T. Sector 17, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:         SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                                 MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                      MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Deepankur Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. J.C. Kapoor, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh. Jatinder Singh, Government Pleader for Opposite Party No.2.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant, being a member of the Opposite Party No.1 Society, had deposited a sum of Rs.16,82,885/- towards the cost of land, and on being found eligible, his name was considered in the draw of lots, to be held on 03.03.2007. The Opposite Party No.1, vide letter dated 9.3.2007, intimated the allotment of Flat No.2036 to the Complainant, requiring him to deposit the balance cost of the land. The Complainant claims that the cost of the flat was finalized as Rs.18,10,000/-. The Complainant deposited full and final amount of the cost of the flat. The Complainant was accordingly, permitted by the Opposite Party No.1 to carry out internal work in his flat, with the assurance that possession of flat would be given only after issuance of completion certificate to the society by the Chandigarh Administration (Annexure C-3).

                   It is alleged that despite passage of substantial time of about more than 03 years, no development work, sewerage connection & completion certificate was ever obtained by the Opposite Party No.1 and rather, vide letter dated 17.06.2010, required the Complainant to pay additional dues of Rs.2,47,565/- against construction money and maintenance charges. As a consequence, the Complainant vide reply dated 1.7.2010 sought certain details from the Opposite Party No.1. However, instead of providing the details, the Opposite Party No.1 got a legal notice dated 30.7.2010 issued to the Complainant, alleging that an amount of Rs.2,47,565/- was recoverable from him (Annexure C-6). The Complainant refuted all the allegations leveled in the said legal notice vide his reply dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure C-7). The Complainant even sought information from the Opposite Party No.1 under the RTI Act, 2005. However, during the course of above referred correspondence, the Opposite Party No.1 in its meeting of General Body cancelled the Membership/ Allotment of the Complainant, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, which according to the Complainant is not only arbitrary, capricious and unjust but also illegal. Hence, this complaint. 

                   The complaint of the Complainant is duly verified and is supported by his short affidavit.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.                Opposite Party No.1. in its reply has contested the claim of the Complainant by raising preliminary objections to the effect that the Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is grossly misconceived; the Complainant is not a consumer; this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try & decide the present complaint under the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                   On merits, the Opposite Party No.1 has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. It is admitted that being member of answering Opposite Party the Complainant was allotted flat No.2036/ 48-C, Chandigarh. The Complainant is defaulter and his flat was cancelled by the General Body which is the supreme body as the Complainant failed to deposit Rs.2,47,565/- which was specifically demanded by the answering Opposite Party vide letter dated 30.07.2010. Inspite of this letter, the Complainant did not bother to deposit the said amount. It is denied that the cost of the flat was never finalized to the tune of Rs.18.10 lacs. It is pleaded that the possession of the flats was taken by the then managing committee and the Complainant was active member of the same. The sewerage connection and completion certificate were to be obtained by them. Even the record of Opposite Party No.1 Society was not handed over by the then managing committee to the present Opposite Party No.1 Society upto January, 2010. However, the record was taken only with the intervention and direction of Opposite Party No.2. After taking over the record, the fire fighting certificate has been obtained after great efforts from the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. Answering Opposite Party claims that proper opportunity was given to the Complainant but he has miserably failed to deposit the legal dues of the Opposite Party No.1 Society. It was not only the Complainant, but there were other eight members also, whose memberships were cancelled on account of non-deposit of dues. When the flat was handed over to the Complainant/member he is liable to pay dues of the flat and maintenance charges. It is also claimed that for settlement of a dispute, the Complainant has a remedy of filing reference u/s 55 or appeal u/s 68 of the Punjab Coop. Society Act, 1961, in order to mitigate his grievance. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, the answering Opposite Party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.  

                   The reply of Opposite Party No.1 is duly verified and is supported by a detailed affidavit of Amarjit Kaur, President, The Chandigarh Sector 7, Coop. House Building Societies Ltd.

4.                Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has contested the claim of the Complainant by raising preliminary objections to the effect that the Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Complainant has not availed the alternative remedy available under the Punjab Coop. Societies Act, 1961.

                   On merits, the Opposite Party No.2 has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. While pleading that the Complainant was a defaulter and his membership was cancelled by the General Body in its meeting held on 22.5.2011, which was attended by the 53 members out of 84 members, answering Opposite Party admitted that it had issued directions to the Opposite Party No.1 to supply the information to the Complainant immediately. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, opposite party No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

                   The reply of Opposite Party No.2 is duly verified and is supported by a detailed affidavit of Balbir Singh Dhol, PCS, Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh.

5.                Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsels for the Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 and Ld. Govt. Pleader for Opposite Party No.2, we have come to the following conclusions.

6.                The Complainant who was the original member of the Opposite Party No.1 Society, as is found confirmed from Annexure C-1 through which it is proved that he had paid an amount of Rs.16,82,885/- as on 28.2.2007. However, the Opposite Party No.1 had declared vide their communication dated 9.3.2007 (Annexure C-2) that the Flat No. 2036 allotted to the Complainant through a draw of lots of flats held on 3.3.2007, the value of the Flat was finalized as Rs.18,10,000/- and the remaining amount over and above the amount already deposited by the Complainant should be deposited in the account of the Society within 07 days of the receipt of this letter. In the meanwhile, the Complainant was also permitted to carry out internal work in his flat, subject to the verification of the payment of tentative cost of the flat paid by the Complainant (Annexure C-3). Through this very letter of permission, it was also pointed out that in case any discrepancy in the credit accounts is found at any stage, the Complainant would be liable to pay the same to the Society. The Complainant was not either entitled or was given the possession of the flat which still remained with the Opposite Party No.1 Society. 

7.                The present complaint is borne out of the dispute when the Opposite Party No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.2,47,565/- from the Complainant, through their communication dated 17.6.2010 (Annexure C-4), which according to them the Complainant has failed to deposit, till date. However, Opposite Party No.1 while exercising its powers under the Constitution of the Society on 22.05.2011  through its General Body Meeting having declared 09 number of its members as defaulters, of which the Complainant’s name is found mentioned at Sr. No.1, were asked to make all their outstanding dues clear within 15 days failing which their membership would be cancelled. It was also mentioned in the same resolution that if any of the defaulters clear his dues within 15 days, the management committee was authorized to review the cancelation of the defaulter’s membership. The Complainant though claims to have made the payment of Rs.1,26,965/- through a Cheque No. 25236 which was cleared on 21.3.2007 by ICICI Bank. The Complainant has brought on record a certificate dated 08.09.2011 from the concerned bank which has declared that the said cheque in favour of the Opposite Party No.1 Society, which was presented by it, was cleared on 21.3.2007 (Annexure C-12). However, as the Opposite Party No.1 lay a claim to an amount of Rs.2,47,565/-, and the Complainant had failed to bring on record anything to prove that the remaining amount too was paid and there is no amount outstanding against him. In the given situation, we feel that the act of the Opposite Party No.1 in not revoking the cancellation of his membership is within its power, as inherited through its constitution.

8.                The Opposite Party in Para No. 6 of their preliminary objections have categorically mentioned that Section 55(1) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, dealing with the settlement of disputes amongst the members of the society clearly bars the jurisdiction of any other court to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute and that such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh. The relevant Section is found reproduced on Pg. 2 & 3 of the written reply of the Opposite Party No.1 Society. 

9.                In the given situation, having gone through Section 55(1)  of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, we are of the concerted view that the present dispute deserves to be dealt with by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh and as Opposite Party No.2 the Registrar itself, who is a party to the present lis has revealed that the proceedings in the same matter are before it for its adjudication; hence, we feel that till the time any fault or discrepancy is made out against the Society by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh, the present complaint is not maintainable qua it. As the Complainant has failed to bring any cogent evidence to falsify the stand taken by the Society, while cancelling his Membership, no case of deficiency in service can be made out against it.   

10.              In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 without costs.

11.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

24^th January, 2013.                                                                                        

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER