ATAM PARKASH vs SILVERTON COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY

THIS is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity to be referred as C.P. Act) by Mr. Atam Parkash seeking compensation of sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs against the opposite parties (for short referred to as O.Ps.) and for issuance of a direction to the O.Ps. to allot same type of dwelling unit.

THE Complainant, Mr. Atam Parkash, applied for membership of the O.P. No. 1, namely, the Silverton Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Chandigarh (for short, hereinafter called the Society) and was admitted as a member in the year 1987. THE Complainant was eligible to be considered for allotment under the scheme for allotment of land to Co-op. House Building Society Scheme, 1991. THE President of the O.P. No. 1 - Society sent letters to the eligible members of the Society regarding allotment of land. According to the Complainant he was eligible for category-A and deposited a sum of Rs. 12,200/- on 28.5.1992 with O.P. No. 3, the Estate Officer. U.T. Chandigarh through O.P. No. 1-Society. THE amount was deposited in the name of the Estate Officer as per the requirement of the O.Ps. It is alleged that the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh kept the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,200/- all through and it has been further alleged that the O.P. No. 3, all of a sudden returned the amount of Rs. 12,200/- deposited by the Complainant, to the Complainant through the O.P. No. 1 - Society. THE amount was returned on the ground that the Complainant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 67,000/- being 25% of earnest money plus interest. Accordingly, the Complainant deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs. 67,000/- with a forwarding letter through the Pay Order No. 72618 dated 6.4.1999 in the name of O.P. No. 2, Chandigarh Housing Board (for short, heareinafter to be referred as CHB) at the behest of O.P. No. 1- Society. THE pay order was encashed by the O.Ps. Subsequently, the Complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 84,700/- by the OP No. 1- Society. THE Complainant also deposited the said sum of Rs. 84,700/- through Cash Order dated 20.5.1999 in the name of O.P. No. 1-Society. THE Complainant was asked by OP No. 1-Society vide letter dated 27.4.2001 to attend office of O.P. No. 2-CHB and office of O.P. No. 1- Society. Accordingly, the Complainant attended the office of O.P. No. 2- CHB and the O.P. No. 1- Society and satisfied both regarding his eligibility. THE Complainant was, however, informed vide letter dated 10.5.2001 that his name did not exist in the screening list. THE Complainant sent a letter dated 5.6.2001 to O.P. No. 1, under Registered A.D. Post, who did not hear anything in respect of it. THE Complainant received a letter dated 30.8.2001 from O.P. No. 1- Society to which he sent a letter dated 5.9.2001 by way of reply. THE Complainant was sent a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 5.9.2001 by the O.Ps. as against a sum of Rs. 1,51,700/- deposited by the Complainant. THEre was a shortage of Rs. 800/- in the amount which was actually refunded from the one which was deposited. THE grievance of the Complainant is that he had hired the service of O.P. No. 1- Society and paid timely expenses and monthly contributions but the O.P. No. 1- Society failed to get the name of the Complainant cleared in the screening. Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs, i.e. O.P. No.-1 Society, O.P. No. 2 - CHB, O.P. Nos. 3 to 5, Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, Registrar, Coop, Societies, U.T. Chandigarh and Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, respectively.

O.P. No. 1-Society filed reply through Mr. S.R. Kaushal, Secretary wherein it was admitted that the Complainant was a member/share holder of O.P. No. 1-Society. The O.P. No. 1-Society acted on the decision of the O.P. No. 5-Chandigarh Administration to deposit 25% earnest money with the O.P. No. 2- CHB for allotment of land, in the first place. O.P. No. 2- CHB and subsequently for a further allotment to all the Cooperative House Building Societies registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 as applicable to U.T. Chandigarh. It was mentioned that the O.P. No. 1- Society on its own did not issue letter to the Complainant nor accepted earnest money. The earnest money was meant for onwards transmission to O.P. No. 2- CHB towards the likely allotment of Land to it under the Chandigarh Allotment of land to Cooperative House Building Societies Scheme, 1991 (Annexure P-I). It was further contended that the O.P. No. 2-CHB pointed out that the name of the Complainant did not exist in the list of screened members prepared by a Screening Committee, constituted by O.P. No. 4 - Registrar Coop. Societies, U.T., Chandigarh and as such the O.P.No. 1-Society informed the Complainant accordingly by way of Annexure P-9 and refunded a sum of Rs. 1,50,800/- being the earnest money deposited by the Complainant through O.P. No. 1 - Society. Regarding the deficiency in amount deposited by the Complainant, it was alleged that O.P. No. 2- CHB was responsible for instalment, so far as O.P. No. 1- Society is concerned it returned entire amount to the Complainant received by it from the O.P. No. 2-CHB. The O.P. No. 1- Society denied the allegation that the Complainant had hired its services and contended that Complainant voluntarily applied for its membership under the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act. 1961 as applicable to U.T., Chandigarh and Rules framed thereunder. The request of the Complainant was accepted by the then Managing Committee of O.P. No. 1- Society and he was enrolled as a member of O.P. No. 1- Society. The Screening Committee was not under the control of O.P. No. 1- Society but was constituted by O.P. No. 4, Registrar, Co-op. Societies for weeding out bogus membership from the cooperative house building societies. There was no role of O.P. No. 1-Society regarding the clarification of the membership of the Complainant.

O.P. No. 2- CHB filed a separate written statement contending that the complaint was not maintainable against it as no relief has been claimed by the Complainant. The only relief claimed by the Complainant is from O.P. No. 1- Society. There was no privity of contract between the Complainant and the O.P. No. 2-CHB. The name of the Complainant was not screened by the Screening Committee constituted by the CHB, which fact was admitted by the Complainant himself in Para 7 of the complaint. The Complainant is, thus, not a consumer against O.P. No. 2 -CHB and he has no cause of action against O.P. No. 2. On merit, it was contended that the O.P. No. 2- CHB was made the implementation agency for carrying out the objectives of the House Building Societies Scheme, 1991. A certficate was to be admitted to assess the demand by Chandigarh Administration/CHB. However, such certificate was to be considered as a commitment for the allotment of land in any way. It was on the directions of the Chandigarh Administration that O.P. No. 2- CHB invited applications from the eligible Co-operative House Building Societies and their eligible members registered with the O.P. No. 4, including O.P. No. 1- Society. After explaining the circumstances in which the amount sought to be deposited was increased, the O.P. No. 2-CHB contended that in response to its letter dated 11.4.2000, the O.P. No. 1- Society deposited the difference of cost of land @ Rs. 2,500/- per sq. yd including the Complainant. On scrutiny, it came to the notice of the Board that the Society has deposited the earnest money on behalf of some unscreened members including the Complainant. It was pointed out that the earnest money was demanded from the Society on behalf of its eligible members only and the Society has deposited the earnest money on behalf of the Complainant for which the responsibility is of the O.P. No. 1-Society. It was pointed out that the Complainant''s name was not screened by the Screening Committee constituted by O.P. No. 2 - CHB.

THE O.P. Nos. 3 to 5, filed separate written statement, wherein it was contended that the Complainant was not a consumer insofar as the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 were concerned and the complaint under the C.P. Act was not maintainable against them. THE jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to entertain the present complaint was challenged. On merit, the pleas raised by the O.P. No. 2- CHB were reiterated and it was contended that the alleged dispute is not covered in the definition of the consumer dispute under the C.P. Act. The written statement was filed through the Joint Registrar. Cooperative Societies. The Complainant filed replication to the written statement of O.Ps. and reiterated his allegations made in the complaint. He led his evidence in the shape of his own affidavit which is dated 15.7.2002. Mr. P.C. Gupta. Accounts Officer of O.P. No. 2-CHB, filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P. No. 2, whereas evidence has been filed in the shape of affidavit of Mr. Inderjit Singh Sandhu. P.C.S. Additional Registrar. Cooperative Societies, By OPs No. 3 to 5.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant as well as the learned Counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 and O.Ps. Nos. 3 to 5 and perused the record of the case.

THE Complainant applied for the membership of O.P. No. 1- Society voluntarily and was admitted as a member. THE contention of the O.P. No. 1- Society is that the Complainant did not hire or avail any service of the O.P. No. 1. It is not the case of the Complainant that he hired or availed the services of the statutory body and Government Agencies i.e. O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 and he cannot be held to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act qua O.P. Nos. 2 to 5. THE O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 performed their respective functions as statutory bodies/governmental agencies and O.P. No. 1-Society had no control over their functions. We find considerable merit in the contention of O.P. No. 1-Society that the O.P. No. 1 was only acting at the behest of the O.Ps. and intimating to the respective members of the Society about the payments being made towards various stages of the amounts. It has also taken a plea that it had no control over the Screening Committee which screened the names of the eligible members for the allotment of the land as the Screening Committee was set up by O.P. No. 4-Registrar, Co-op. Societies, and it cannot be said in any way that the complainant has availed or hired the services of O.P. No. 1 and that the O.P. No. 1 was deficient in rendering service to him. As mentioned above, the Screening Committee found the Complainant as ineligible and his name was not cleared after screening and resultantly, the O.P. No. 1 - Society refunded the amount which was deposited by the Complainant as earnest money. In our considered opinion, the Complainant under some mistaken belief has approached the State Commission under the provisions of the C.P. Act and sought relief against the O.Ps. The dispute which has been raised by the Complainant in his complaint cannot be described to be a consumer dispute covered under the provisions of the C.P. Act. In our considered opinion, it is only a civil dispute for which the appropriate remedy lies by filing a civil suit seeking appropriate relief by filing an appropriate complaint before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

Resultantly, we find that this complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the C.P. Act and the same is dismissed as being not maintainable under the provisions of the C.P. Act. However, the Complainant shall be at liberty to file a civil suit seeking redressal to his grievances before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The costs of the case shall be borne by the parties themselves. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Complaint dismissed.