State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Chandranath Bandopadhyay vs State Of West Bengal, Through ... on 30 January, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/202/2011 (Arisen out of judgement dt. 11.3.11 of DCDRF, Nadia, in C.F.Case No. CC/10/49) DATE OF FILING : 11.04.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:
30.01.2013 APPELLANT Mr. Chandranath Bandopadhyay S/o Mr. Durgyadas Bandopadhyay 6, P.K.Ghatak Road Bhangrapara Ranaghat Nadia-741201.
RESPONDENTS
1. State of West Bengal through Secretary Department of Co-operative Writers Building, Kolkata-700 001.
2. West Bengal Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd.
P-15, India Exchange Place Extension Todi Mansion (3rd Floor) P.S. Barabazar, Kolkata-700 073.
3. West Bengal State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd.
P-15, India Exchange Place Extension Todi Mansion (3rd Floor) P.S. Barabazar, Kolkata-700 073.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, W.B.S.C.H.F. Ltd.
P-15, India Exchange Place Extension Todi Mansion (3rd Floor), P.S. Barabazar Kolkata-700 073.
5. The Branch Manager/In Charge West Bengal State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd.
93, Subhas Avenue, P.O. Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia-741 201.
6. Registrar of Co-operative Societies Government of West Bengal New Secretariat Building 1, Kiran Sankar Roy Road Kolkata-700 001.
7. Niva Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
through the Secretary of the Organisation 6, Pandit Kalimoy Ghatak Road Bhangrapara, P.O. Ranaghat, Dist.
Nadia-741 201.
8. The Secretary Niva Co-operative Housing Societies Ltd.
6, Pandit Kalimoy Ghatak Road Bhangrapara, P.O. Ranaghat, Dist.
Nadia-741 201.
9. Smt. Banani (Das) Chakraborty Co-operative Development Officer (Hqrs.), Chairman, P.O. Krishnanagar, Collectorate Building P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia.
10. Mr. Suman Das Gupta Co-operative Development Officer (Hqrs) Member, P.O. Krishnagar Collectorate Building P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia.
11. Mr. Shyamal Kumar Pal Inspector of Co-operative Society Ranaghat-1, Dev. Block, Convenor, Member, P.O. & P.S. Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia.
12. Mr. Arijit Chakraborty S/o Late Krishnadas Chakraborty 53/3, Dey Chowdhurypara Lane P.O. & P.S. Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia.
13. Mr. Partha Sarathi Chakraborty S/o (not known to the appellant) Niva Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Flat No. T-3 (2nd Floor) 6, Pandit Kalimoy Ghatak Road Bhangrapara, P.O. Ranaghat, Dist.
Nadia-741 201.
14. Mr. Pradip Kumar Banerjee S/o Late Promod Kumar Banerjee 34/A, Mukherjeepara Lane P.O. & P.S. Srirampore Hooghly.
15. Mr. Arup Saha S/o (not known to the appellant) Niva Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
6, Pandit Kalimoy Ghatak Road Bhangrapara, P.O. Ranaghat, Dist.
Nadia-741 201.
16. Mr. Subodh Ranjan Saha S/o Late Mohan Lal Saha Niva Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
6, Pandit Kalimoy Ghatak Road Bhangrapara, P.O. Ranaghat, Dist.
Nadia-741 201.
BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER :
MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE APPELLANT :
Mr. S.Nayak, Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocates FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Barun Prasad, Mr. Dulal Ch. Sarkar, Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Mr. Suranjan Dutta, Ld. Advocates : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 11.3.11 passed by Nadia District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in C.F.Case No. CC/10/49, wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the petition of complaint on contest against the Ops without cost.
The case of the complainant/Appellant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant along with 18 persons are the members under the OP No. 8, i.e. Niva Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., for the purpose of purchasing/owning independent flats and that the OP No. 8 obtained loan facilities to the tune of Rs. 39,47,000/- from the OP No. 2, i.e. West Bengal Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., for the purpose of construction of a housing project on condition that the project will be completed/the loan will be repaid by 31.12.2020. It was the further case of the complainant that in spite of repayment of entire loan amount along with other dues on his part to the OP No. 2 directly his flat was never demortgaged in spite of his repeated requests and demands by the OP No. 2 and its other officials, who are OP Nos. 3,4 &
5. According to the complainant, this act on the part of the said Ops tantamounted to gross deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal.
OP Nos. 2,3,4 & 5 contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the OP No. 8 having not repaid the entire loan amount, a piecemeal settlement of the loan and demortgaging of the flat in question does not arise at all in the absence of any bonafide cause of action the complaint case was not maintainable and that in the absence of any deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
OP Nos. 10,11 & 12, who happen to be the officials of the Co-operative Department, also contested the case by filing a separate written version thereby denying and disputing all the averments made in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the Consumer Court is not the proper forum for adjudication of the disputes between the parties, for which the complainant ought to have approached the court of arbitration in the office of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, West Bengal, as per provisions of Section 95 of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
OP Nos. 6 & 7, who are officials of Co-operative Department, Govt. of West Bengal, also contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying and disputing all the allegations mentioned in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the transactions never took place between the Ops and the Complainant and as such, the petition of complaint should be dismissed with cost.
OP Nos. 16 & 17 also contested the case by filing a separate written version thereby praying for dismissal of the case on the ground that the Ops were not the necessary parties to the present litigation.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the petition of complaint was filed at a premature stage, inasmuch as, the repayment of the entire loan have not been complete and the question of demortgaging the flat of the complainant in a piecemeal manner was not possible and also the disputes raised by the complainant ought to have been referred to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as per terms of Section 95 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and accordingly, dismissed the case of the complainant.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
Decisions referred to by the Appellant :-
1) I (2004) CLT 20 (SC)
2) I (2004) CLT 28 (SC)
3) I (1991) CPJ 462
4) I (1991) CPJ 467 DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that Ld. District Forum having utterly failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of dispute involved and the conduct of the parties has arrived at a decision, which is not at all sustainable under the law.
According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, Ld. District Forum has ignored the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and in the process, has passed a judgement, which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate, when admittedly the complainant has repaid the loan amount in full direct to the authority, from whom the Co-operative Society obtained loan, question of demortgaging the flat of the complainant does not arise at all. According to the Ld. Advocate, the reasons assigned by the Ld. District Forum in dismissing the petition of complaint are also contrary to the established principles of law and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant has come forward with a case to the effect that he along with others in the capacity of a Member under Niva Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., obtained loan facilities from West Bengal Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. (OP No.
2) on condition for completion of the housing project/repayment of the loan by 20.12.2020. According to the complainant, in spite of his repayment of the entire dues his flat was not demortgaged by the OP No. 2, which, according to the Complainant, tantamounted to deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal. The Ops, on the other hand, have come forward with different cases to the effect that the complainant has approached the Consumer Forum at a premature stage, there was no cause of action to institute the Consumer Complaint, the disputes raised by the complainant ought to have been referred to the Court of Arbitrator in the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and that the time-limit of repayment of the loan having not been arrived at, the Consumer Complaint was liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has traversed the cases of respective parties reasonably well and in passing the impugned judgement has practically left no stone unturned. When, admittedly, Niva Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (OP No. 8) obtained the loan for the housing project on behalf of its members, which included the complainant, with a condition to complete the project and repay the loan amount by 20.12.2020, question of entertaining the Consumer Complaint prior to that date does not arise at all. In this regard, we find much substance so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Ops, according to whom, a dispute of similar nature ought to have been referred to and adjudicated by the Arbitrator in the office of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and that the law of the land also permits the same. Having considered the present Appeal in the light of above discussions we find that there is practically no merit in the present Appeal and accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum, which is liable to be confirmed. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement stands confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER