Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
Heard Appellant in person.
(1) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Consumer Complaint No.686/2008, Mr.Girishkumar Manilal Pancha, V/s. The Secretary (Mr.Arvind Baburao More), Ekta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., by an order dated 13th July, 2010 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban (in short ‘Forum below’), the original Complainant has filed this appeal. (2) Undisputed facts are that, there is proceeding for recovery against the Complainant by the Opposite Party Society and even certificate U/sec 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for recovery of Rs.17,635/- was obtained from the authorities under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. (3) According to the Complainant, one block belonging to Mr.Dangle was disposed of by him. The said flat is adjacent to Complainant’s premises. He alleged leakage from the block of Mr.Dangle to his block. He alleged deficiency in service on the ground that those repairs relating to leakages were not attended by the Society and filed this complaint. (4) According to the Society there is no substance in the allegations and the consumer complaint is filed just to counter the recovery proceeding filed under the Co-operative Societies Act and which were taken against the Complainant. Forum below finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Society, dismissed the complaint. (5) It is a dispute between the member of the Society and the Society. Both are governed by the by-laws of the Society. The bylaws of the Society provides as to how to get redressed problems in respect of internal leakages to the flat. These by-laws also clarify which repairs are to be attended by the Society and which repairs are to be attended by the Member himself. In the instant case nothing has been shown that it is the Society who has to carry out the repairs in question. Further more, it is also not shown that the procedure as prescribed under the by-laws to get redressed the complaint of leakages was channelized and completed. Complainant tried to show that it is the society which had to carry the repairs in question. Furthermore, the complaint is not filed against the Society, but, against its office bearers, namely, the ‘Secretary (Arvind Baburao More)’. These two are distinct ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No service deficiency could be alleged, in the given circumstances against Honorary Secretary of the Society without adding the Society as a party. Under the circumstances, no deficiency in service on the part of the Society could be alleged. Thus, complaint necessarily fails. We find the appeal is devoid of any substance and pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal stands rejected. (ii) No order as to costs. | 
