The court established that the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy for disputes between cooperative societies and their members, and emphasized the personal liability of society office bearers for fraudulent practices.

ORDER

Dev Raj, Member. - The facts, in brief, are that Opposite Party No.1 - Society offered its membership to the general public in the year 2011 and was to develop the land purchased from the farmers as a residential complex in the name and style of SUNTEC CITY. It was to carve out residential plots and to develop the said complex by providing all basic amenities like roads, sewerage, street lights, parks, playing area etc. after obtaining all necessary sanctions from the Govt./competent authority. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 is looking after affairs of Opposite Party No.1 Society and also accepted money from the complainants against the said residential plot, in question. It was further stated that the complainants, being very good family friends for last many years, decided to purchase a plot of 10 marlas with an intention to build a residential house. They decided to purchase a plot measuring 250 sq. yards and accordingly approached the opposite parties and became member of the society by paying an amount of Rs. 500/- as membership fee on 02.06.2011 (Annexure C-2). The complainants purchased the said plot at total price consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/-. The complainants deposited the demanded amount of Rs. 5,62,500/- vide receipts (Annexure C-3). The complainants have already deposited a sum of Rs. 11,25,000/- i.e. 50% of the total price consideration of the plot without entering into any agreement. It was further stated that the opposite parties failed to offer possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period of five years from the date of booking. It was further stated that opposite parties have not got all the approvals from the competent authority and as such, indulged into deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice.

2. It was further stated that the opposite parties showed rosy picture to the complainants at the time of booking of the plot and more than six years have passed and till date, nothing has been done by the opposite parties. It was further stated that the opposite parties failed to offer possession within the promised time period. It was further stated that CLU by the govt./competent authority was granted to the opposite parties only on 03.06.2016 (Annexure C-4) and that too subject to certain conditions but the opposite parties failed to take any steps after grant of CLU and as on date, plots have not been carved out. It was further stated that the complainants approached the opposite parties a number of times with a request to refund their deposited amount with some reasonable interest as there was no development activity on the site.

3. Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainants filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) claiming refund of Rs. 11,25,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the respective dates of payments till realization; pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as special damages and cost on account of loss of opportunity of getting the plot at that price; Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment, undue hardship and agony due to deficiency in providing service and Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation.

4. The Opposite Parties, in their written statement, took up a preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable before the Commission as the dispute is between the member of the society and the society and hence, it has to be filed and tried before the Registrar Cooperative Societies under the Punjab Cooperative societies Act, 1961 read with Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 as amended up-to-date.

5. On merits, it was admitted that Opposite Party No.2 is the President of Opposite Party No.1. However, it was denied that he is responsible for non-acts/conducts of Opposite Party No.1. It was further denied that Opposite Party No.2 is responsible