Taken up in physical hearing.

1.       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