The Consumer Complaints were held valid and maintainable despite claims of fraud and jurisdictional issues, with concurrent findings of both forums upheld.

1. 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 Complai