BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.84/13.

Date of instt.: 07.05.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 14.08.2015.

Baljit Singh alias Baljeet Ram S/o Ram Parshad, r/o Ward No.3, Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. The Cheeka Co-op. House Building Society Ltd. through its Secretary, Old Grain Market, Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal.

2. Assistant Registrar, Co-op. Societies, New Karnal Road, Kaithal.

3. The Haryana State Co-op. House Federation Ltd., Panchkula through its Registrar.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.                     

Present :        Sh. Rajesh Vadhera, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he was the member of Op No.1 which is a Co-op. Society.  It is alleged that the Op No.1 had financed an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant in the year 1992 for the construction of residential house on interest.  It is further alleged that the said amount of Rs.45,000/- was to be repaid in the next 80 equated quarterly instalments in 20 years.  It is further alleged that the complainant continuously made the payment of instalments to the Ops.  It is further alleged that now after more than 6 years, a letter dt. 17.12.2010 in form XII came to the complainant in which the principal amount of Rs.14,945/- has been shown as outstanding balance by the Op No.2.  The interest amount of Rs.79,378.05 paise and the panel interest to the tune of Rs.70,879.39 paise i.e. total amounting to Rs.1,66,202.84 paise has been demanded from the complainant.  It is further alleged that similarly, the Ops No.1 and 2 in connivance with each other have issued another letter dt. 28.03.2013 in which again the total amount of Rs.1,66,202.84  paise has been demanded illegally against the principal amount of Rs.14945.40 paise.  The said letters dt. 17.12.2010 and 28.03.2013 are wrong, illegal and against the principle of natural justice.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; estoppel; that the answering Op has not provided any goods and services for consideration to the complainant, hence, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer qua the answering Op, so, the complaint is not maintainable; that in case in the disputes arise, disputes referable to Asstt. Registrar for arbitration and his decision is appeal able to higher Appellate Authority and revision is also competent before the Govt. in Co-operation Departments.  These channels have been provided for adequate redressal of grievances in the interest of justice.  Thus, the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 caters to the requirements of redressal of grievances at different levels comprehensively.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Ops No.2 and 3 filed the written statement separately on the same line as followed by Op No.1 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

4.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-A to Annexure-EE and closed evidence on 15.01.2015.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence documents Ex.RA to Ex.RD and closed evidence on 06.05.2015.   

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant was the member of Op No.1 which is a Co-op. Society.  The Op No.1 had financed an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant in the year 1992 for the construction of residential house on interest.  The complainant paid all the instalments to the Ops regularly.  He further argued that the demand of Rs.1,66,202.84 paise vide letters dt. 17.12.2010 and 28.03.2013 from the complainant are wrong and illegal.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint.  He argued that the Ops have not provided any goods and services for consideration to the complainant, hence, the complainant does not fall in the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The perusal of the record shows that the case relates to matter of accounts which could not be disposed off in a summary manner and required to be elaborate evidence.  In this regard, we can rely upon the authority reported as Milan Barot & others Vs. Mukesh Haridat Bhatt & others, 2011(2) CPC page 579, wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that Housing services-Jurisdiction-Dispute relating to allotment delivery of possession and account settlement between the parties; House purchased with the help of loan amount-Possession of landlord was not offered despite receiving payment of its price-Certain complicated issues being involved dispute cannot be decided by Consumer Agencies-As it is “business to business” dispute, Civil Court alone is the proper Forum to adjudicate the matter.  In para No.11 and 12 of the said judgment, it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that:-

        11.    Respectfully following the above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the instant case the present dispute is a dispute between the two parties pertaining to settlement of account where a counter-claim has been advanced against the respondent/complainant by the Petitioner herein.  This matter is, therefore, to be adjudicated in a civil court and not in a consumer court since it is clearly a “business-to-business” dispute.

        12.    Keeping in view these facts, we do not intend to intervene any further in the matter.  The parties are at liberty to approach the civil court or any other appropriate forum in accordance with law for settlement of their dispute, if they so desire. 

We can also rely upon the authority First Appeal No.1388 of 2008, The Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar (SCDRC, Haryana), wherein it has been held that the complainant instead of filing complaint before the District Forum should have approached the civil court for settlement of accounts with Ops.  The above-said mentioned judgments are fully applicable to this case. 

7.     In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.14.08.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.