Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Gauri Grih Nirman Sahakari Maryadit – Petitioner
versus
Pankaj Chouhan and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.104 of 2011, Revision Petition No.105 of 2011, Revision Petition No.106 of 2011 and Revision Petition No.2914 of 2011
Decided on 1.4.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21(b) and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11)] – M.P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 – Section 94 – Co-operative Housing – Revised layout plan – Deficiency in service – Petitioner is a Co-operative housing society and complainants-respondents were its members – Layout of the colony was changed even without intimation to the complainants – Complainants requested the petitioner for amendment in the sale deed and to protect interest of complainants but the society did not take any steps – District Forum directed petitioner to clear position of plot and execute fresh sale deed in favour of complainants – State Commission dismissed the appeal against – Hence the revision petition – There is no bar is Section 94 of Act of 1960 that complaint cannot be filed against the co-operative society without making the Registrar as a party – Since the petitioner got the revised layout sanctioned without intimation to the complainants, both the Fora below passed orders in favour of complainants – No illegality found in orders passed by Fora below – Interference with declined. (Paras 9 to 14)
Result: Petition Dismissed.
JUDGMENT
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—Revision Petition Nos.104 to 106 of 2011 have been filed against common the order dated 05.10.2020 in First Appeal Nos.730, 731 & 1017 of 2008 and Revision Petition No.2914 of 2011 has been filed against the order dated 15.07.2011 passed in First Appeal No.1075 of 2011 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, “the State Commission”) whereby First Appeal Nos.730, 731 & 1017 of 2008 were dismissed on merit and First Appeal No.1075 of 2011 was dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Case of the Complainants/Respondents is that the Petitioner was a Co-Operative Housing Society and the Respondents/Complainants were its Members. Complainant Pankaj Chouhan was allotted Plot No.A-58 of 1500 sq. ft. for a sum of Rs.22,500/-, vide sale deed dated 06.05.1994. Neeraj Chouhan was allotted Plot No.A-59 of 1500 sq. ft. for a sum of Rs.22,500/-, vide sale deed dated 10.06.1994. Sunita Modi was allotted Plot No.A-60 of 1500 sq. ft., vide sale deed dated 31.12.1993. P.N. Ahirwar was allotted Plot No.A-11 of 35 x 60 sq. ft. for a sum of Rs.31,500/-, vide sale deed dated 26.05.1993. Original site plan was also annexed alongwith each of the sale deeds. On 03.03.2003, the Petitioner/Opposite Party got the layout plan revised by the Town & Country Planning Department, without intimation to the Complainants, due to which plot numbers of the Complainants were changed from A-58, A-59, A-60 and A-11 to 58, 50, 60 & 11 respectively. In the revised layout plan, lay-out of the colony was changed without intimation to the Complainants. The Complainants requested the Petitioner Society for amendment in the sale deed and to protect the interest of the Complainants, but the Society did not take any steps. Claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner/Opposite Party, Complainants filed individual Complaints before the District Forum. Prayers made in the Complaints were almost similar. Revision Petition No.104 of 2011 being the lead case, prayer made in Complaint No.366/2004 filed by Complainant Pankaj Chouhan is taken out. Same reads as follows: -
a) That, let the Ld. Forum pass an order directing the Respondent that he should allot/give a plot which is equivalent to plot No.A-58 allotted and sold to him originally in all its aspects and also otherwise give him said plot in accordance with the revised approved layout. Let the Respondent be also directed to execute a revised/supplementary sale deed as necessary accordingly in favour of this Complainant alongwith;
b) In addition to the above, let the Ld. Forum direct the Respondent to execute the agreed development work in the colony related to the plot sold by him and as a part of the same, let him provide basic necessity by arranging electricity, passage road, water, sanitation etc., as promised by him to his members.
c) That let the said Respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) to this Complainant for causing mental agony to this Complainant for not arranging basic amenities as above and delay caused due to non-commencement development work.
d) That, let the Ld. Forum pass any such assistance, relief in favour of this Complainant at its sole discretion as it deems fit.
e) Let the cost of this Complaint be directed to be paid to the Complainant.”
3. Complaints were contested by the Opposite Party by filing reply. Opposite Party raised the issue of maintainability of the Complaint. It was stated that the Complaints were barred by limitation as they were filed after an inordinate delay of 11 years. District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to pass an order for revision of the registered document. It was contended that the sale deed was not executed by the Opposite Party. Ex- President of the Petitioner-Society, Mr. Rakesh Sharma had executed the sale deed in his personal capacity because the Opposite Party had not authorized him to execute the sale deed. Complainants we
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
