The court established the principle of privity of contract and the jurisdictional overlap between the Consumer Protection Act and the Co-operative Societies Act.

Mrs. Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member—The complainant is before us alleging deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties occasioned by their failure to execute Sale Deed conveying the property along with the building to the complainant.

2. Briefly stated, it is the complainant’s case that the opposite parties developed a part of their property at Navelim, Margao, Goa, by constructing thereon a building consisting of shops, garages and flats sold to various persons. One of the conditions of the agreement was that a Co-operative Housing Society would be formed for the maintenance of the building and on formation of such Society the property would be conveyed and transferred to such Society. Upon completion of the building, the various purchasers formed a Co-operative Housing Society that was duly registered in February 2002. Thereafter, several requests and demands were made by the complainant to convey the property, the last such request was made by registered letter dated 24.9.2002. The complainants received a circular dated 2.9.2005 from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies that in case conveyance deed is not executed, the Society would be liquidated. The complainants have prayed for a direction to the opposite party to execute Sale Deed conveying the said plot and building in favour of the Society.

3. The complaint is resisted by the opposite parties who, in their written version have raised preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and themselves, and that the opposite parties have not rendered or agreed to render any service to the complainant. The dispute touches the business of the Society and, therefore, only the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has jurisdiction to settle the same. It was also submitted that the complaint was below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

4. On merits, the opposite parties have denied the averments made in the Complaint, however, they have admitted the execution of the agreement dated 27.6.2001 as well as the registration notice dated 24.9.2002. It is the opposite parties case that they did not convey the property in favour of the complainant as they did not receive any communication from the Chief Promoter that the Society has been registered.

5. Parties have filed affidavit-in-evidence and reiterated the stand taken by them in their pleadings. The parties entered into an agreement dated 27.6.2001 executed before Shri R.M. Lotlikar, Notary, Margao and registered in his books under No. 925/01. Execution of the agreement is admitted at para 8 of written version. Clause 1 of the said agreement stipulates that the vendors (opposite parties herein) agree to convey and transfer the said part of the property along with building constructed thereon in favour of the purchasers as soon as the Society is registered (complainant herein). At Clause 3 the vendors have agreed to submit all legal documents and papers required for registration of Sale Deed within six months of receipt of intimation of registration from the Chief Promoter. There is letter dated 24.9.2002 issued by the Chief Promoter of the complainant calling upon the opposite parties to execute Conveyance Deed within fifteen days. Receipt of this letter is admitted by the opposite parties at para 10 of the written version. The opposite parties’ case is that the letter dated 24.9.2002 was signed by the Promoter and not by the Chief Promoter and that there was no communication from the complainant-Society. We do not agree with this submission. The letter dated 24.9.2002 was issued on the letter head of the complainant-Society and was signed by M/s. Joanita Carneiro; we say this as the signature of the said Joanita Carneiro on the agreement dated 27.6.2001 and on the letter dated 24.9.2002 is the same.

6. It is clear that the opposite parties are trying to avoid execution of the Sale Deed for some reason. The opposite parties have themselves admitted at para 1