S.B.Tripathi vs J.N. COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED

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 26.7.1999, passed by District Forum (North-West) in Complaint Case No. 835/98 - entitled Sh. S.B. Tripati v. Jawahar Lal Cooperative 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 he was residing at 292, Vidhya Vihar, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, as a tenant of one Sh. P.S. Rawat, a member of the respondent Society. It was stated in the complaint that as per the agreement executed between the appellant and his landlord said Sh. P.S. Rawat, maintenance charges were to be paid by the landlord to the respondent Society which the landlord paid initially but subsequently stopped paying the same with malafide intention and without informing the appellant as a result of which water supply to the flat of the appellant was discontinued by the respondent Society on 21.2.1996 due to non-payment of maintenance charges. THEreupon the appellant filed a civil Suit in the District Forum and in the civil suit filed by the appellant, the stand taken by the respondent was that a sum of Rs. 7,320/- was due and payable by said Sh. P.S. Rawat, the landlord of the appellant on account of maintenance charges. THE appellant agreed to pay the arrears of maintenance charges but later on came to know that the respondent Society had not correctly stated the exact amount of maintenance charges and had included other dues also in the maintenance charges, i.e. ground rent of the flat in question etc. It was stated in the complaint that the appellant made a total payment of Rs. 6,765/- in instalments and wrote to the respondent Society to intimate the exact amount of arrears of maintenance charges but no reply was received. On 7.4.1997, the respondent Society served a copy of letter dated 5.4.1997 on the appellant, which was addressed to said Sh. P.S. Rawat stating therein that there was arrears of maintenance charges to the extent of Rs. 1,355/- for the period from 1995-1996. It was stated in the above-said notice/letter dated 5.4.1997 addressed to said Sh. P.S. Rawat, copy endorsed to the appellant that if the amount of arrears was not paid by 15.4.1997, water supply to Flat No. 292, Vidhya Vihar, Outer Ring Road, Delhi would be disconnected. THE grievance of the appellant in the complaint, filed by him, before the District Forum was that though the appellant had paid the maintenance charges for supply of water, the water supply had been disconnected by the respondent Society only to harass him. THE appellant claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- together with costs of litigation. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent Society who filed a written statement. In the written statement/written version filed on behalf of the respondent Society before the District Forum certain preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint were taken stating therein that in view of provisions contained in Sections 60, 90 and 93 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, the complaint, filed by the appellant, against the respondent was not maintainable that the appellant was not a ''cosumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, that the respondent Society had not rendered any ''service'' to the appellant under the provision of the Act, that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the appellant had no locus standi to file the complaint and there was no cause of action for the appellant against the respondent Society to file the complaint. On merits, it was stated that when the member of the respondent Society (Sh. P.S. Rawat) failed to pay the dues towards maintenance charges, the respondent Society was constrained to disconnect the water connection of Flat No. 292. It was also stated that the appellant had challenged the demand Notice of the society dated 5.4.1997, the subject matter of the complaint, before the Civil Court. It was stated by the respondent in the written version/written statement that the complaint, filed by the appellant, be dismissed with costs.

The appellant filed a rejoinder controverting the pleas taken in the written version/written statement and reiterating the averments made in the complaint.

THE learned District Forum vide impugned order has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard 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 the basis of material on record it is not in dispute that the appellant is the occupant of Flat No. 292, Vidya Vihar, Outer Ring Road, Delhi in his capacity as a tenant of Sh. P.S. Rawat, a member of the respondent Society. The case of the appellant, in the complaint, filed by him before the District Forum was that as per the agreement executed between him and the landlord of the flat in question said Sh. P.S. Rawat, maintenance charges were to be paid by the landlord. It has been held by the learned District Forum in the impugned order that a copy of the abovesaid agreement stated to have been executed between the appellant and the landlord said Shri P.S. Rawat was not filed by the appellant before the District Forum in support of his above contention. Even before this Commission the abovesaid document was neither filed nor produced by the appellant to substantiate the above contention that maintenance charges in respect of the above-said flat were to be paid by the landlord of the appellant, namely Sh. P.S. Rawat. In the written version/written statement filed on behalf of the respondent Society, it was specifically pleaded that notice of the respondent Society dated 5.4.1997 had been challenged by the appellant before the Civil Judge. The above plea, taken by the responent Society, in its written version/written statement, has not been specifically denied either in the rejoinder or in the affidavit filed by way of evidence by the appellant. The respondent Society, as already stated, inter alia had taken a preliminary objection to the effect that the complaint filed by the appellant, before the District Forum was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In our opinion, the above plea, taken by the respondent Society is also not without substance because the appellant is merely a tenant and the landlord of the flat is Sh. P.S. Rawat, who is also a member of the respondent Society. Thus said Sh. P.S. Rawat decidedly was a necessary party and the complaint filed by the appellant, before the Distict Forum, therefore, was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Admittedly, the maintenance charges demanded by the respondent Society vide letter dated 5.4.1997, from said Sh. P.S. Rawat, the owner of the flat, had not been paid and, therefore, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and being impugned in the present proceedings. For the above reasons, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.