IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum cannot consider illegality involved in Bye-Laws of society or they being ultra wires.

Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to assail the order of dismissal of the appeal dated 14.5.2015 by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) filed against the order of dismissal of the complaint by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai District (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) vide order 7.1.2014.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the complainant had purchased flat from one Mr. Suri, and become a resident member of the OP Society vide order dated 28.3.2006. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties have unlawfully collected Rs.1,11,111/- from the complainant in 2006 under the pretext of arrears due from the previous owner of the flat. The complainant claims that the opposite parties have arbitrarily charged Rs.50,000/- for parking space allotment from the complainant only and not from other residents. According to the complainant, the opposite parties have failed to maintain the building as well as the society premises, thereby causing inconveniences/disturbance and jeopardizing the safety of the residents. It is the case of the complainant that opposite parties have committed breach of the Bye-Laws and provisions of the Mahrashtra Co-op Society Act, 1950. Aggrieved by the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant had approached the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies but his application was rejected. Although, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, no cognizance was taken.

3. Aggrieved by the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Forum and filed a consumer complaint. The District Forum vide order dated 07.01.2014 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the claim of refund of amount paid to the opposite parties is barred by law of limitation.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 14.05.2015 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the complaint is time barred and the complainant has failed to file an application for condonation of delay in this regard.

5. Hence the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thoroughly perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that both the fora below have dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground of limitation. It was stated that the delay was only 3 days and the District Forum did not condone the delay and dismissed the complaint. The appeal was preferred before the State Commission by the complainant which was also dismissed vide its order dated 14.5.2015. The learned counsel also stated that for certain reliefs the complaint was well within the prescribed period of two years but even for those reliefs, the complaint has been dismissed. It is stated that the State Commission has erred in relying upon the statement of the OP that the amount of excess service charges which the complainant has claimed have been paid on 10th October, 2009 and the complaint has not been filed within a period of two years. The petitioner has prayed for the excess amount of service charges and parking charges and there are clear remarks of “paid under Protest on 26.12.09”. Moreover, opponent’s Receipt No.226 is dated 28.12.2009, duly encashed on 30.12.2009 at the Bankers bank of Baroda. Thus the complaint was very much in limitation period and hence, no application for condonation of delay was required.

8. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel that the State Commission has further erred in considering opponent’s arguments that it was the prerogative of the General Body to decide the Maintenance and parking charges as B