Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member and Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Member
Taken up in physical hearing
Budha Singh – Petitioner
versus
Jan Vihar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1222 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 11/01/2018 in Appeal No.542/2010 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 27.9.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Niraj Chaudhry, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Petitioner eligible for initial amount paid but not for reinstatement of flat allotment
(2) Only rules of Co-op society can be ground for allotment
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act (21(b) of 1986) – Revision Petition[Consumer Protection Act (47(1)(b)] – Petitioner bought flat in Respondent Co-op. Society – Respondent demanded additional Rs. 60,000 payout – Petitioner did not pay and became ineligible for procuring a flat – Respondent did not return initial deposit by Petitioner – Petitioner filed complaint with Distt. Commission – Distt. Commission awarded refund of initial deposit with 9% interest from the date of deposit with Rs. 15,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as costs – Appeal filed with State Commission for reinstatement of flat – State Commission upheld compensation order but denied grounds for reinstatement – Revision Petition against State Commission order filed with NCDRC – NCDRC upheld initial Distt. Commission order and refused to modify State Commission order. (Paras 3, 4, 5 and 7)
Result: Revision Petition Dismissed, Initial order Upheld.
ORDER
This Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’) in challenge to the Order dated 11.01.2018 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 542 of 2010 arising out of the Order dated 25.05.2010 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nand Nagri (the ‘District Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 127 of 2008.
2. Heard the learned counsel at admission. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 25.05.2010 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 11.01.2018 of the State Commission and the Petition.
3. The dispute relates to not depositing the balance amount due for allotment of a plot by the complainant (the petitioner herein) and consequential cancellation of his membership and denial of plot by the opposite party co-operative housing society (the respondent herein).
Proved facts of the case are that as per resolution(s) / decision(s) taken on 03.05.1992 and 31.10.1993 by the general body of the co-operative housing society, wherein the complainant was also present, and which resolution(s) / decision(s) were passed with the consent of all members present, the complainant was to deposit additional amounts under various heads over and above the Rs.60,000/- deposited by him upto till 10.08.1991, but the complainant did not make the requisite additional deposit(s); consequently his membership was cancelled and he became ineligible for a plot. However, the co-operative housing society was still retaining the amount of Rs. 60,000/- deposited by the complainant.
4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint on contest. It ordered for refund of the amount of Rs. 60,000/- deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 11.08.1991 till the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26.04.2008 along with Rs. 15,000/- as lumpsum compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. It however did not allow for revival of membership / allotment of a plot.
5. The State Commission dismissed the complainant’s appeal vide its Order dated 11.01.2018, noting that the complainant had not deposited the requisite additional amount(s) as per the resolution(s) / decision(s) taken by the general body of the co-operative housing society, holding that the District Commission had passed a reasonable order which took care of the interests of both the parties; the complainant had been compensated by directing refund of his deposited amount with interest, compensation and cost of litigation.
6. We find nothing on record or in the arguments made on behalf of the complainant to show that the complainant was subjectively or arbitrarily discriminated against or was differently treated in relation to other similarly situate members / persons by the co-operative housing society.
7. No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below is visible. The award made by the District Commission, as affirmed by the State Commission, appears just and equitable in the facts of the case. No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible.
8. We find nothing to warrant interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
The Petition is dismissed.
However the District Commission shall ensure compliance of its award, if not already complied with, within four weeks from today, failing which it shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalties’, and as per the law.
9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the Petition and to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately. Revision Petition Dismissed, Initial order Upheld.
