State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prem Shanker Agrawal vs The Csio on 31 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/96/2025
(Against the Order dated 10th December 2024 in Complaint DC/AB1/44/CC/735/2022 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh district commission)
PREM SHANKER AGRAWAL
PRESENT ADDRESS - HOUSE NO 553, VIGYAN VIHAR, SECTOR 49A, CHANDIGARH ,
CHANDIGARH , HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SCO 144-145, NH-21, SECTOR-117, CHANDIGARH-
KHARAR ROA , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
THE CSIO
PRESENT ADDRESS - PRESIDENT/SECRETARY, THE CSIO EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE
HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY 1ST LTD, VIGYAN VIHAR, SECTOR 49 A, CHANDIGARH-160047
, CHANDIGARH , HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SCO 144-145, NH-21, SECTOR-117, CHANDIGARH-
KHARAR ROA , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
IN PERSON
DATED: 31/12/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench) Appeal No. : 96 of 2025 Date of Institution : 11.02.2025 Date of Decision : 31.12.2025 Prem Shanker Agrawal, Senior Citizen, aged 70 years, Resident (Owner) of H.No.553, Vigyan Vihar, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh (U.T.)-160047.Mobile No.9216531944 .......Appellant Versus President/Secretary, The C.S.I.O. Employees Co-operative House Building Society (1st) Ltd., Vigyan Vihar, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh-160047 ...Respondent Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 10.12.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.735/2022.
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER
For the appellant : Sh. Prem Shankar Agrawal, appellant in person
For the respondent : Sh.Anil Kumar Lamdharia,Advocate
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.2024, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as "the Ld. District Commission"), vide which, it dismissed the complaint bearing No.CC/735/2022, being meritless.
2. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant that he purchased H.No.553, 'B' Category, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh, on General Power of Attorney from Mr.Amar Nath (Original Allottee) on 10.10.2000. The allotment of the said House No.553 was given to the original allottee Mr.Amar Nath vide letter dated 25.03.2000 and the physical possession was taken by him on 24.04.2001. It was averred that in the month of October 2002, some of the allottees of the Society filed a Petition before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh as per Society Act/Rules against the Construction Contractor who was not removing the defects in the flats. Out of the Court settlement, the Construction Contractor agreed to pay Rs.7 Lakh FD to the CSIO Society Management and waive off the bill of Rs.10.5 Lakh against the defects in construction of dwelling units. The CSIO Management in its meeting held on 08.10.2003 decided and distributed Rs.7 Lakh among the 41 Members of the Society as Rs.20,250/- for 'A' Category, Rs.13,500/- for 'B' Category and Rs.11,400/- for 'C' Category Members but the distributed amount was kept by the Society in its bank account. It was further averred that the amount of Rs.13,500/- of H.No.553 is lying with the CSIO Society since 30.12.2003 and it neither paid to the original allottee nor to the GPA(Complainant) who has now become the owner of the House No.553 after registration of the Conveyance Deed on 24.11.2021 in his name. The complainant requested the Society vide letter dated 21.03.2022 to pay/return the amount of Rs.13,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 01.01.2004 as this amount is lying with the society since 30.12.2023 but it returned the letter to complainant on 27.03.2022 without any reply. The complainant again sent the same letter to the Society through speed post on 30.03.2022 but to no effect. When all efforts made by the complainant to seek redressal of his grievance failed to get any result, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, a consumer complaint was filed before the Learned District Commission seeking refund of Rs.13,500/- along with interest and pay compensation & costs of litigation.
3 Pursuant to issuance of notice, the Opposite Party appeared before the Ld. District Commission and contested the complaint. In its written version to the complaint, it was stated that complainant was a GPA Holder of Sh.Amar Nath and earlier applied for transfer of share in his favour. The society demanded Rs.23,500/- (i.e. Rs.13,500/- for conversion charges from leasehold to freehold and Rs.10,000/- being balance of electrical sub-station erection). All the GPA Holders, except the complainant, had paid the dues and their flats were transferred in their names. The complainant had not made the payment, therefore, the flat was not transferred in his name. Thereafter, the complainant filed dispute under Section 55-56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh vide Case No.26 of 2011 and the same was dismissed on 06.03.2013. The complainant filed appeal against the order dated 06.03.2013 before the Secretary Cooperation, Chandigarh Administration vide Appeal No.23 of 2013 and the Secretary Cooperation did not find any illegality in the order dated 06.03.2013 and upheld the same on 24.07.2015. The complainant filed Revision Petition against the order dated 24.07.2015 before the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2016. Thereafter, the complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.758 of 2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh which was dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2017,however, with liberty to approach the Civil Court of Competent Jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. The complainant then filed Revision Petition No.25 of 2017 before the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The complainant filed Appeal No.307 of 2017 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2018 being devoid of any merit. Thereafter, the complainant filed Revision Petition No.1285 of 2018 before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, against the order dated 16.02.2018 and the said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2020. It was pleaded that as the complainant has already availed the remedies available to him and now there is nothing in his favour on the issue. The remaining allegations were denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
4. On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. District Commission dismissed the Complaint of the appellant /Complainant, being meritless, as noted in the opening para of this order.
5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/complainant.
6. We have heard the appellant as well as Learned Counsel for the respondent and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.
7. As per the case set up in reply to the complaint by the Opposite Party/respondent, earlier the matter went upto the Hon'ble NCDRC and the revision petition No.1285 of 2018 filed by Sh.Prem Shanker Agrawal (appellant herein) was dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2020, operative part of which reads as under ;
"I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and examined the record. The State Commission has given a clear finding that the amount of Rs.23,500/- is in the shape of fees. The society has also submitted before the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies that the amount of Rs.13,500/- is for conversion of lease hold to free hold and Rs.10,000/- for extension of sub-station of electricity. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Principal Secretary of the Cooperative Department of the State Government have agreed with the reason given by the Cooperative Society for charging Rs.23,500/-. Thus, clearly, it is the misunderstanding on the part of the petitioner/ complainant that this amount is being taken as bribe or something which is illegal. The same amount has been charged from all other allottees and the society would be giving proper receipt for the same, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner/ complainant is totally unfounded. So far as the new scheme vide notification dated 31.12.2019 is concerned, its provisions are to be interpreted by the officials of the Society, Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and the Government. In this regard, it is not possible to pass any order at this juncture. In the revision petition, only illegality or material irregularity or the jurisdictional error is to be seen in the impugned order. As the demand of Rs.23,500/- has been upheld by the State Government, and a proper break-up of this amount has already been given which seems justified, this Commission would like to desist from passing any contrary order.
Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, revision petition no. 1285 of 2018 is dismissed."
8. The appellant, after passing of the order of the Hon'ble NCDRC deposited the amount of Rs.23500/- vide receipt dated 2.7.2021 (Annexure A-4) as demanded by the Society. However, the grievance of the appellant in the complaint as well as in this appeal is that in the month of October 2002, some of the allottees of the Society filed a Petition before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh against the Construction Contractor who was not removing the defects in the flats and out of the court settlement, the Construction Contractor agreed to pay Rs.7 Lakh FD to the CSIO Society Management and waive off the bill of Rs.10.5 Lakh against the defects in construction of dwelling units. The CSIO Management in its meeting held on 08.10.2003 decided and distributed Rs.7 Lakh amongst the 41 Members of the Society as Rs.20,250/- for 'A' Category, Rs.13,500/- for 'B' Category and Rs.11,400/- for 'C' Category Members but the distributed amount was kept by the Society in its bank account. The said amount of Rs.13,500/-, being share in respect of H.No.553 is lying with the CSIO Society since 30.12.2003 and neither the same has been paid to the original allottee nor to the GPA(Complainant) who has now become the owner of the House No.553 after registration of the Conveyance Deed on 24.11.2021 in his name. The complainant requested the OP vide letter dated 21.03.2022 to pay/return the amount of Rs.13,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 01.01.2004 but as the same was not paid, the complainant filed complaint before the Ld. District Commission. However, the respondent in its reply again reiterated the old story of conversion fee which has been deposited by the appellant. Regarding the amount of Rs.13500/- which fell to the share of House No.553 nothing has been whispered. The Ld. District Commission relying upon the reply of the respondent, dismissed the complaint without going into detail about the amount of Rs.13500/- which was distributed out of the amount given by the contractor as per out of court settlement.
9. The appellant, who is a senior citizen, has already paid the amount of Rs.23,500/- vide receipt dated 2.7.2021. It is not the case of the respondent that the amount of Rs.13,500/-, refund of which is being sought by the appellant was not due to him or it was adjusted towards any dues to be recovered from the appellant or any other amount is recoverable towards the dwelling unit NO.553 of the appellant. Since the amount of Rs.13500/- fell to the share of dwelling unit No.553, the appellant being now owner of the said Unit is entitled to get refund of Rs.13500/-. As the said amount remained deposited with the respondent and the appellant remained bereft of its use, as such, the respondent is liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e.1.1.2004 till its payment. We order accordingly.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted and consequently the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is set aside. The respondent is directed to refund Rs.13500/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 1.1.2004 till its actual payment. The amount be paid within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which, respondent shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a.
11. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
12. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
..................
PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J RAJESH KUMAR ARYA MEMBER