VED PARKASH vs KRISHNA KHURANA

IN this appeal order dated 24th of November, 1994 passed by the learned District Forum, Hisar has been challenged by one Ved Parkash on the ground that he was neither an office bearer of the Society nor a developer or dealer in housing plots and since he had only purchased a plot from the Society and sold the same to respondent No. 1, he could not be subjected to the consumer jurisdiction.

COMPLAINANT Smt. Krishna Khurana had purchased the residential plot of 295 square yards on 1st of October, 1992 from the appellant Ved Parkash. He issued allotment order to her on 28th of October, 1992 and enrolled the complainant as a member of the Hisar Dipesh Co-operative Housing Society. Though the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs. 82,600/-, yet the possession of the developed plot was not delivered to her, she approached the District Forum, Hisar for the delivery of possession of the developed plot or in the alternative for the refund of the amount deposited by her with costs and suitable compensation. Ved Parkash in his reply admitted the claim as also issuance of the allotment letter and the payment of Rs. 82,600/-, but he however denied his liability to refund the amount. Learned District Forum finding merit in the complaint allowed the same and directed the opposite party, i.e., Ved Parkash, appellant in the present appeal and Smt. Krishna Sharma the then President of the Society, to refund the amount of Rs. 82,600/- with interest @ 18% per annum.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are satisfied that the appellant-Ved Parkash could not be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act. Inasmuch as he was neither an office bearer of the Society nor had he allotted any plot to respondent No. 1. In fact, he was himself an allottee and got a plot from the Society, which he had transferred to Smt. Krishna Khurana-respondent No. 1. It is the Society, which is liable to give possession of the plot in dispute to respondent No. 1. Therefore, so far as the appellant-Ved Parkash is concerned, we accept his appeal and set-aside the order of the learned District Forum passed against him. Regarding the claim of respondent No. 1Smt. Krishna Khurana, who has already made the payment of Rs. 82,600/- to the Society, she is entitled to have the possession of the plot from the Society. Therefore, we allow the complaint of respondent No. 1-Smt. Krishna Khurana against respondent No. 2-Society with a direction that the possession of the plot duly developed shall be delivered to respondent No. 1 within two months, failing which the entire amount paid by respondent No. 1 shall be refunded to her with 18% interest from the date of the deposit till the actual date of payment. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.