Jurisdiction of consumer forums is limited when disputes involve cooperative societies and must be redirected to the appropriate regulatory authority under the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act.

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R:

Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 03.05.2023 of learned District Consumer Disputes

1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Redressal Commission Una, passed in Consumer Complaint No.156/2016, titled Amarjeet Singh Versus The Shiva Cooperative House Building Society Limited & Ors., whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

Brief facts of the Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Sunita Parwal, wife of the complainant, was registered Member of the opposite party No.1/Society and nominated the complainant as her nominee, as per the Rules. The Society vide its resolution decided that every member must pay Rs.80,000/- for 10 marlas plot and Rs.1,80,000/- for 1 Kanal plot. The wife of the complainant paid Rs.81,100/- to the Society for 10 marlas plot. The wife of the complainant unfortunately died on 07.02.2002 at Una and factum of death was reported to the opposite party No.1/Society. The Society demanded Rs.10,000/- as due amount and the said letter was replied by the complainant on 03.09.2005 and raised objection, but no reply of the letter of complainant was sent by the opposite party No.1/Society. The complainant being a Govt. Servant in H.P. was transferred to Shimla and after retirement when visited Una, then came to know that name of his wife is missing from the list of Members. The complainant on 21.12.2009 sought information under RTI, but the same was not supplied. Later on, it was told to complainant that name of his wife has been struck off from the Membership. The opposite parties neither allotted the plot nor refunded the amount deposited by complainant and his wife with the opposite parties. By alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint.

3. The opposite party No.1/Society filed reply to the complaint and stated that wife of the complainant was member of the Society till 25.10.2005. The Society assumes the complainant as nominee of Smt. Sunita. The Society received Rs.80,000/- as plot money and Rs.1100/- as membership fee in the name of Smt. Sunita Parwal. The Society was making regular correspondence in the name of Sunita Parwal with respect to meeting of General House and for payment of due amount, but there was no response. It was only in the year 2008, the Society came to know about the death of Sunita Parwal vide letter of complainant. The complainant did not make request for transfer of membership of Sunita in his favour. The amount of Rs.10,000/- was demanded from Sunita Parwal in the year 2005 vide various registered letters, but neither the complainant nor the other legal heirs of deceased made payment of due amount. The Society took decision in the meeting on 18.09.2005 that in case she fails to pay due amount within one month, her membership shall be deemed to have been expelled from Society and amount deposited stands forfeited as per bye-laws. Smt. Sunita was defaulter and was deemed to have been expelled as per decision of Society dated 18.09.2005. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Society.

A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. The opposite parties No.2&3 filed reply to the complaint and stated that wife of complainant was member of opposite party No.1/Society and present complaint is a dispute under Section 72 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1968 and Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As per provision No. 17 of the Bye-laws of Society if payment due on account of share remains unpaid for more than three months, the managing committee may declare s