BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Rajiv Sethi son of Krishan Sethi, Krishan Kutir, Lower Sham Nagar, Dharamsala, District Kangra (Himachal Pradesh).

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]      The Nectar Co-operative House Building Society, SAS Nagar Mohali having its office at SCO No. 208-209, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its President Sh.Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, Second Correct address :- r/o House No.1235, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

2]      Sh.Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, President of society “The Nectar Co-operative House Building Society, SAS Nagar Mohali” having its office at SCO No. 208-209, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, Second Correct address :- r/o House No.1235, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

3]      Eng.Balkar Singh, Secretary of the society “The Nectar Co-operative House Building Society, SAS Nagar Mohali” having its office at SCO No. 208-209, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, Second Correct address :- r/o House No.989, Sector 69, Mohali.

4]      Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, Cashier of the society, “The Nectar Co-operative House Building Society, SAS Nagar Mohali” having its office at SCO No. 208-209, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, Second Correct address :- r/o House No.1235, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

5]      Sh.Raj Kumar Goyal, Vice President of the society, “The Nectar Co-operative House Building Society, SAS Nagar Mohali” having its office at SCO No. 208-209, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, Second address :- Raj Kumar Goyal son of Diwan Chand Goyal, r/o House No.47, Young Dwellers Society, Sector 49, Chandigarh.

6]      a) Official Liquidator, in the matter of Nector Co-Op House Building Society Ltd. C/o Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Punjab, 30 Bays Building Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. b) Official Liquidator in the matter of Nector Co-op House Building Society Ltd. C/o Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Punjab Randhawa Road, Kharar.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Counsel for Complainant.

                        OP No.1, 2, 4 & 6 already ex-parte.                     

Sh.Gunjan Rishi, Counsel for OP No.3 & 5.                                  

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

                    Briefly stated, the OP No.2 to 5 formed a Society known as The Nector Co-operative House Building Society, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The complainant with a view to own a house/flat in the proposed project of the OP Society purchased a plot of 250 square yard at Mohali in the said Society and paid a sum of Rs.10,500/- vide receipt dated 4.1.2007 towards earnest money/share, Rs.510/- as share and administrative fee vide receipt dated 4.1.2007, Rs.3,43,750/- vide receipt dated 4.1.2007 and Rs.40,000/- vide draft dated 26.12.2006. The  complainant in total deposited Rs.3,94,760/- as land cost/part payments. Apart from the above, a sum of Rs.97,000/- has been received by the said person on account of unforeseen expenses. At the time of booking, it was promised by the OPs that the project would start within a couple of months after obtaining the requisite permissions from the concerning authorities and getting the sale deed registered in favour of the Society.

          It is alleged that after waiting a lot, no construction of any sort was started, no boundary wall was constructed and demarcation was not got done, which caused a doubt in the mind of the complainant. The complainant made number of visits and vide Regd. Letter dated 31.1.2011 requested the OPs to refund his amount with interest, but the OPs failed to refund it to the complainant or deliver the plot. Hence, this complaint.

2.                OPs No.1, 2, 4 and 6 were served, but did not appear and suffered ex-parte.

3.                OP No.3 & 5 filed joint reply and took preliminary objections vis-vis complainant is not the consumer and limitation. It is stated that the Society went into liquidation and the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies by taking cognizance appointed Liquidator vide order dated 23.4.2007 and in pursuance to the Orders of the Registrar, the Liquidator took over all the assets and properties of the society. He is in control of all the affairs of the society. The liquidator has to settle the claims of the members of the society ‘if any’ and in that context, the executive body of the society was also dissolved. Thus, the Consumer Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

          On merits, it is stated that answering OPs never issued any receipt regarding the payment. The receipts for the amount received have been issued by the cashier of the Society OP No.4. All the correspondence for demanding installments have also been done by the President or the cashier and the answering OPs have no role to play in that transaction. In view of this, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

4.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6.                The grouse of the complainant is that he purchased a plot of 250 square yard at Mohali and deposited a sum of  Rs.3,94,760/- and apart from the said amount, a sum of Rs.97,000/- has been received by the OPs on account of unforeseen expenses. He visited the proposed site of the OPs but to his utter surprise, no construction was going on as OPs did not have the requisite permission from the concerned authorities to raise the construction.

7.                The OPs No.3 and 5 raised the plea that they have not issued any receipt to the complainant regarding the payment and the said receipts for the amount received have been issued by the cashier of the society – OP No.4.

8.                The complainant has placed on record the receipts dated 4.1.2007 for Rs.3,43,750/-, Rs.510/- and Rs.10,500/- (Annexures C-6 to C-8 at page nos. 11 to 13) respectively issued by the OP-Society. The perusal of the receipts as well as copy of the affidavit of the complainant dated 29.3.2010 -Annexure C-12 reveals that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.3,54,760/- with the OPs instead of Rs.3,94,760/-, as mentioned in the complaint. Annexure C-13 is the letter written by the complainant to the OPs giving the detail of the amounts deposited by him. Annexure C-14 is the copy of the legal notice served upon the OPs requesting them to refund the deposited amount with interest. 

9.                The complainant has specifically stated in his affidavit that no land has been allotted in the name of the OPs society, despite of the fact that they have received the amount of Rs.3,54,760/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs.3,94,760/- in the complaint) and a sum of Rs.97,000/- has been received by the said person on account of unforeseen expenses. Thus, the OPs have failed to refund the deposited amount with interest, despite his repeated requests and visits. The complainant has placed on record the copies of the receipts, which shows that the complainant had deposited in all a sum of Rs.3,54,760/- with the OPs, which was not refunded to him. However, the complainant is not entitled to Rs.97,000/- because he has failed to produce on record any receipt to show that this amount was ever received by the OPs from the complainant. In our considered opinion, the non-refund of the deposited amount despite repeated requests of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Reliance placed on Juliet V. Quadros Vs. Mrs.Malti Kumar and Others reported in 2005(2) CPC-162 (NC).  Hence, the complainant is held entitled to refund of the deposited amount along with interest and litigation costs.

10.              It has further been argued by the learned counsel for OPs NO.3 and 5 that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is admitted case of the OPs that no land was allotted by the concerned authority to the OPs society, despite this, they have received the huge amount from the complainant and they did not refund the same, despite repeated requests.  So, this plea is not available to the OPs.

11.              As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs No.1 to 5 are directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.3,54,760/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective date of its deposit till realization and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation within one month  from the date of receipt of the certified copy.

12.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.