ORAL ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 23/05/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.40/2006, Mr.Mukhtiar Singh v/s. Mr.S.R.Vohra;  by Central Mumbai District Forum.  It is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of respondent/original opponent, who was Chief Promoter of the proposed Housing Society of which appellant/complainant was also a member, namely, Lavkush Co-op.Housing Society Ltd. (proposed).  After some time complainant wanted to withdraw the membership from the said society and demanded back the contribution made by him till then.  It is further alleged that the Chief Promoter on request of the complainant refunded the amount by issuing cheque for `2,93,240/- which was bounced.  According to respondent/ opponent while issuing the said cheque complainant was instructed not to encash the said cheque.  However, since the amount was not refunded, the consumer complaint was filed. 

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed that on the amount of `3,18,240/-which was refunded, interest @ 9% p.a. be paid for the period 01/07/1997 to 30/06/2000.

          It is not disputed that an amount of `3,18,240/- was accordingly received by way of refund by the complainant from the opponent.  It was also directed that over the amount of interest accrued, further interest @ 6% p.a. be paid and `5000/- be paid by way of compensation for mental torture and `2000/- as costs.  However, not satisfied with the reliefs granted, complainant preferred this appeal.

          It may be mentioned at the outset that it is stated at Bar that respondent/original opponent acquiesced with the impugned order and did not file any appeal.

          Heard Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate for the appellant and Ms.Prerna Shrivastav-Advocate for the respondent. 

          Referring to the consumer dispute raised as per the written version filed by respondent/opponent, firstly, he challenged nature of transaction and to adjudicate upon it would not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  He also challenged status of the complainant as ‘consumer’.  It is submitted on their behalf that even if it is taken that he was a Chief Promoter, in that case whatever contribution were received from the complainant was the one received from a promoter in the proposed society.  After some time, admittedly, since the complainant wanted to withdraw the membership from the said society, demanded back his contribution.  Ultimately `3,18,240/- were accordingly refunded.  Liability to pay interest over the said amount is also disputed.

          On perusal of the record, we find that the receipts of the payment which are on record supports that the contributions were made as one of the members of the proposed society and the amount was deposited with the Chief Promoter.  Referring to the another communication dated ‘Nil’ addressed to the complainant himself from New Generation Builders Pvt. Ltd.,  it is further clear that the construction activity was to be undertaken on behalf of the proposed society by the said builder.  Thus, the Chief Promoter and the Promoters of the proposed society were to engage services of third agency as a developer and builder for proposed housin