The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of Cooperative Society members and liquidators under the 1961 Act, and the duty of office bearers to safeguard the interests of the Society members.

ORDER

S. Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member - These are 3 appeals filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) against the order dated 17.2.2010, passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), vide which the OP/appellants were directed to jointly and severely pay the amount of Rs. 5,10,500 along with interest @ 9% per annum as calculated from the respective dates of payment made by the complainants to them till the date the amount is paid in full and also to pay Rs. 5,000 towards costs of litigation. In the first instance, Mukhtiar Singh, Inspector/Liquidator OP No. 5 (now appellant in appeal No. 125 of 2010) was to make the payment within a period of 3 months from the date of order but if no payment is made or full payment is not made by the due date due to any technical, legal or other reason, then the remaining or the entire amount, as the case may be, was to be paid jointly and severely by Balkar Singh OP No. 2 (now appellant in Appeal No. 128 of 2010) and Raj Kumar Goyal OP No. 3 (now appellant in appeal No. 132 of 2010) within a period of one month from the expiry of the period of 3 months from the date of order. In case the order is not complied with as directed, they were liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum calculated from the respective dates of deposit by the complainants till the date of payment along with litigation costs of Rs. 5,000.

2. According to Malwinder Singh Battu and his wife Manpreet Kaur, complainants/respondents No. 1 and 2 they obtained the services of the OPs/appellants by becoming member for allotment of a flat in the Housing Society floated by the OPs. It was alleged that Balkar Singh and Raj Kumar OPs/appellants got the Society registered in the name and style of Nectar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (OP-1) (hereinafter referred to as the Society) with its administrative office at SCO No. 208-209, Top Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. Balkar Singh appellant was said to be Secretary and Raj Kumar Goyal Vice President of the Society who were incharge of its affairs running day-to-day work. They used to collect money for raising construction and to do all other works relating thereto. It was alleged that Balkar Singh, appellant as Secretary of the said Society met the complainants at house No. 2854, Sector 38C, Chandigarh and induced them to become the members of the above said Society so as to enable them for allotment of a flat. He further assured that the land had already been purchased by the Society and the construction work would start soon. Acting on the inducement/assurance of Balkar Singh, the complainants paid the membership fee of Rs. 10,500 and they were enrolled as its members. Another sum of Rs. one lac was paid through Shri Balkar Singh in cash regarding which no receipt was issued by him. Thereafter the complainants paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,500 on different dates as mentioned in Clause (3) of para 3 of the complaint. Balkar Singh had been telling the complainants that the land had already been purchased by the Society, that site plans have been prepared and Bhoomi Poojan would be held in December 2006 but the same was not performed as promised. When the complainants asked Balkar Singh to show them the papers regarding the purchase of the land by the Society, he neither showed the papers nor specified any date/month for starting the construction and rather issued them a share certificate dated 1.12.2006 (Annexure C-10). The complainants came to know that the registry of the land meant for construction of flats has not been executed by the Society and smelling fishy about the claims, they sent letter dated 28.3.2007 to the Society for opting out of it and requested for refund of their amount. However, Balkar Singh had been putting off the complainants on one pretext or the other and no payment was made by them. The complainants made numerous efforts an