ANIRUDH THAREJA vs K.K.VEDI

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 11.1.2000, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 726/99, entitled Sh. Anirudh Thareja v. K.K. Vedi, President, M/s. Nutan Arya Wart Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the appellant got himself enrolled as a member of the respondent society and paid a sum of Rs. 1,15,110/- on 27.2.1997 for a flat which was to be constructed by the respondent society. It was averred by the appellant in the complaint filed by him that the respondent society had assured the appellant that the appellant would get the flat within a period of three to six months. It was alleged that the respondent society failed to honour its commitment and even the construction work was not commenced by the society. It was stated in the complaint by the appellant that the appellant resigned from the membership of the society and the respondent society thereafter refunded a sum of Rs. 1,14,000/- to the appellant on 10.11.1998. THE grievance of the appellant in the complaint before the District Forum was that the appellant had to suffer great hardship and the appellant claimed interest on Rs. 1,15,110/- from 27.2.1997 to 10.11.1998, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of escalation in the price of the flat and further a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental agony. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was contested by the respondent society who filed a written statement. The stand, taken by the respondent society, in the written version, before the District Forum, was that the appellant was enrolled as a member of the society and he paid a sum of Rs. 1,15,110/- on 27.2.1997. The allegation that the respondent society promised that the flat would be made available within three to six months was specifically denied. It was contended that on 10.11.1998, the appellant submitted an application stating therein that he was resigning from the society of his on accord. It was stated that on appellant''s resigning from the membership of the society, a sum of Rs. 1,14,000/- after deducting the administrative charges, as per rules, had been refunded to him and the appellant has signed vouchers in full and final settlement of all dues.

The learned District Forum, vide order, being impugned in the present proceedings, has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant, on the ground of non-maintainability of the same.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On a perusal of the impugned order and the material on record it is not in dispute that the appellant, as a member of the respondent society, had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,15,110/- for allotment of a flat. It is also not in dispute that the appellant on 10.11.1998 submitted an application stating therein that, on account of delay, he was resigning from the membership of the respondent society of his own accord. On appellant''s resigning as a member of the respondent society on 30.11.1998, the respondent society, as per rule, after deducting administrative expenses of Rs. 1,000/- refunded the balance amount of Rs. 1,14,000/- to the appellant. Not only this the appellant, after the receipt of the above amount, executed a receipt, in token of his having received the above amount in full and final settlement of his claim. On the basis of the above facts, it has been held by the learned District Forum that the appellant is not entitled to claim any interest after having given the said receipt. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the above findings of the learned District Forum.

THE learned District Forum, placing reliance on a decision of the National Commission and also of this Commission has held that the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum, constituted under the Act, was not maintainable. In our opinion, in the given facts, the above findings of the learned District Forum also suffer from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has placed reliance on decisions of the National Commission and that of the State Commissions in Cases Udaipur Cement Works v. Punjab Water Supply and Sewage Board, 1991 (1) CCC 4 (NS); Somnath Setia v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., Complaint Case No. C-174/96 - decided on 28.9.1998; Bir Inder Singh & Ors. v. Chandigarh Admn. & Ors., I (1999) CPJ 646=1999 (1) CCC 346; Sh. M.K. Arora v. M/s. Parmarth Coop. Society Ltd., 1999 (1) CCC 100 (DS); M/s. Asha Bhayana & Ors. v. Shri Ram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd., 1991 (1) CCC 64 (DS); and Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. v. M/s. Arihant Processors, 1999 (2) CCC 69 (SS). We have gone through the above decisions of the National Commission and that of the various State Commissions, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, there can be no dispute about the proposition of law laid down therein but the same are distinguishable and in the given facts, in no way help the cause of the appellant in so far as the present appeal is concerned. In view of the position explained above, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, in our opinion, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.