Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member, Prem Narain, Member
Kiran Batwara & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Nav Jeevan Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.2881, 2882 of 2011
Decided on 4.3.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chandra Manohar Batwara, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Milind Kumar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
No relief can be given on a time-barred complaint.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24-A—Cooperatives—Allotment of land to members of society—Case of petitioners as per their complaint is that they have not been allotted shops as there was change in plan—As such, there is deficiency in service on part of respondents—Petitioners were handed over possession of shops in year 1988 whereas consumer complaints were filed before District Forum only in year 2006—On face it consumer complaints filed by petitioners before District Forum are hopelessly barred by limitation—No application for condonation of delay was filed along with complaints—Petitioners already received possession of shops as early as in year 1988—Consumer complaints are barred by limitation—Revision petitions dismissed. (Paras 15, 18 to 24)
Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.
Above noted revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as facts in both cases are similar and common question of law is involved in these petitions. Revision Petition No. 2881 of 2011(Kiran Batwara Vs. Nav Jeewan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.) shall be taken as the lead case.
2. Brief facts are, that Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 has been registered under Co-Operative Society’s Act in the year 1972. It is stated, that respondent no.1 purchased land after receiving amount from its members and to allot the same with the object of satisfying the residence and commercial necessity of its members. Petitioner/Complainant has paid Rs.5/- being admission fee and Rs.100/- share value to respondent no.1 and membership of the society was accepted.
3. The Petitioner was allotted land for shop nos. 4 & 5 in plan Nirman Nagar C for Rs.2,000/-, being the cost, Rs.5/- as admission fee and share value of Rs.100/ totaling Rs.2,105/- vide receipt no. 5758 dated 12.04.1981. After that, for conversion charges and penalty and expenses of Rs.1,259/- vide receipt no.9908, dated 26th March, 1982 and sub division fee of Rs.300/- was received from the petitioner by the society on 15th January,1983. The name of petitioner was appearing in the list published in1994 by Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 at Serial No.2. The petitioner went to obtain the site plan to complete the preliminary action for construction of the shop. He was informed, that plan has been changed and his name is not appearing in the allotment list now published. The Petitioner gave application to Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 on 18.04.2005 but no information was given. The site plan of the society was approved by respondent no.2 but entry of the aforesaid two shops was not there. Since, petitioner is residing outside Jaipur, he could not look after the shops and could not get correct information regarding the shop land. Respondent No.2 did not take any action on his application. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get shop land and if due to any reason, same is not provided then its cost of Rs.3,53,355/- may be allowed.
4. Respondent No.1 in its written statement has stated, that on 27th January, 1988, actual possession with site plan of shop nos. 4 and 5 in Nirman Nagar C, was given. Therefore, the cause of action stated to have arisen on 26th May, 2005 is false and fictitious. The petitioner who got the membership, does not come under the category of ‘Consumer’ and complaint is barred by limitation. Further, Rajasthan Co-Operative Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the complaint according to the Rajasthan Co-Operative Society Registration Act, 1956 and District Forum has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint Hence, complaints deserves to be dismissed.
5. Respondent No.2 in its written statement has also stated, that shops were delivered to the petitioner on 27th January, 1988. Thus, complaint of petitioner is barred by limitation. Further, petitioner is not a ‘Consumer’.
6. District Forum vide order dated 22.01.2009, dismissed the complaint.
7. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed (First Appeal Nos.283 and 284of 2009) before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short, ‘State Commission’), which dismissed the same vide impugned order.
8. Hence, these petitions.
9. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, that petitioner being member of Respondent No.1’ Society is entitled to get land for the shops, which respondents have failed to allot till date. Therefore, Fora below have committed error in dismissing the complaints.
11. In support, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon following judgments;
(i) The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. Lalitha (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors., 2004 (1) CPR 35 SC;
(ii) Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare and Ors. Vs. Shree Dhyaneshwar Mah
