State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr Anand Charya vs Gore-Wadi Co-Operative Housing ... on 11 September, 2012
Daily Order
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/11/98
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 06/12/2010 in Case No. 31/2010 of District Central Mumbai)
MR ANAND CHARYA
R/AT:- 13 NEW ROSE-VILLA
GORE WADI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,
MOGUL
LANE MAHIM
MUMBAI - 400 016.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. THE CHAIRMAIN,
GORE-WADI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
MOGUL
LANE MAHIM
MUMBAI 400 016.
2. THE SECRETARY,
GORE-WADI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
MOGUL
LANE MAHIM
MUMBAI 400 016.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
PRESENT:
Adv. K. C. Sanil for the Appellant
Adv. Anoop Mehta for the Respondents Nos.1 and 2
ORAL
ORDER
Per - Hon'ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode,
Presiding Judicial Member Heard Adv. K. C. Sanil on behalf of the Appellant and Adv. Anoop Mehta on behalf of the Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
[2] This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Complainant takes an exception to an order dated 6/12/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forum' for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.31 of 2010, Mr. Anand Charya Vs. The Chairman, Gore-Wadi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Another. At the outset it may be mentioned that in effect the consumer complaint is as against the Society, namely - Gore-Wadi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for the sake of brevity) and its Secretary. This mis-description of the parties got corrected in appeal and the lis is contested accordingly.
[3] It is an appeal filed by the Appellant/original Complainant, namely - Mr. Anand Charya (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant' for the sake of brevity) not satisfied with the relief granted by the Forum. The reliefs granted by the Forum are about leakages in the flat of the Complainant in his bathroom and to take steps to avoid eve's water entering through the door of the flat. Other relief granted is about giving warning to other members of the Society who were engaged in the business of manufacturing medicines, to not to cause any nuisance to the Complainant.
[4] The Forum did not grant any other relief to the Complainant on the ground that the Forum had no jurisdiction to grant them. Referring to the complaint, there are in all 14 issues mentioned by way of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Society and out of which, relief relating to issues at Sr. No.2, 10 and 11 about rain water coming into the house of the Complainant by bouncing on the water-shed of Flat No.101 of Anand Bhuvan building is remedied by the Forum and so also Issue No.7 regarding nuisance due to manufacturing activity of medicines is also settled giving appropriate directions. Society did not file any appeal and as such, acquiesced with those directions.
[5] As to Issue No.1, it refers to nuisance caused by the work carried out near water tank of Anand Bhuvan i.e. name of the building of the Society. Said event had taken place on 16/3/2003. Thus, grievance made in form on this count was time-barred when the complaint was filed. Besides that looking to the nature of such grievance, it cannot be entertained as a 'consumer dispute' and for the alleged tortuous liability the Complainant has a remedy of damages or asking for appropriate injunction in the Civil Court.
[6] Issue No.3 raises an issue as to an action on the part of the Society not to refund an amount of `55,696/- to the Old Bhadekaru Sangh of Old Rose-villa. Firstly, this being a monetary claim not connected with any deficiency in service and since it does not relate to the Complainant, the same is not entertainable. Besides that the Complainant submitted that he first made a complaint about it on 11/12/2006 and then, on 14/1/2007. Therefore, it is a stale complaint and cannot be entertained in form of a consumer dispute.
[7] Same is the case in respect of Issue No.4 which deals with interest for the period of October-2005 to December-2005 not credited by the Society to the concerned members of the Rose-villa building.
[8] As far as Issue No.5 is concerned, it deals with again a monetary claim for non-action of refundable corpus fund of `1,45,000/- to the previous owner of the property. It is also a stale claim since the initial complaint was made about it on 11/12/2006 and 14/1/2007 and at the second instance, the corpus funds of the Society are controlled by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Society cannot touch said fund except with the permission of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Consumer complaint, therefore, is per-se not entertainable besides the fact that it is a stale dispute.
[9] Same is the case in respect of Issue No.6 which refers to an agreement dated 22/12/1995 between the Society and the THDC Ltd., and the Corpus Fund of `10,00,000/- received by the Society from THDC Ltd.
[10] As to Issue No.8 it refers to demand of documents in the year 2006 by the Complainant to the Society.
This subject is governed by the bye-laws of the Society and on payment of necessary charges the documents can be supplied to the Complainant as per the bye-laws of the Society. The Complainant failed to show that he has applied and complied with the necessary requirements as per the bye-laws to obtain copies of the documents.
Therefore, rejection of the said claim by the Forum cannot be faulted with.
[11] Issue No.9 refers to nuisance caused by alarm of lift fitted to Rose-villa building. It has nothing to do with the services hired by the Complainant from the Society. If it is an actionable nuisance under tort, the Complainant has remedy elsewhere but no 'consumer dispute' will lie for the same.
[12] Same is the case in respect of Issue No.12 which correlates with the maintenance charges which perhaps the Society is recovering in respect of Rose-villa building. If, it is a case of the Complainant that demand of those charges is improper, he is in effect challenging the resolution of the Society about the rate by which those charges are levied. He has a remedy before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and not as a 'consumer dispute' since no deficiency in service on the part of the Society can be alleged since the Complainant is bound by resolution passed by the Society in its general body meeting or the charges levied as per bye-laws of the Society.
[13] As to Issue No.13, it refers to an event when the Complainant was a Member of Managing Committee of the Society and he had raised an issue about the decisions taken by the said Committee. It is not a grievance which could be entertained as a 'consumer dispute'. Similar is the case of issue of expulsion of the Complainant as a Member of Managing Committee.
[14] Last Issue No.14 deals with water-bill i.e. demand connected with it and non-supply of information in respect of the bill raised.
In absence of any particulars thereof and since the Complainant failed to show that he had completed the formalities seeking the information as per the bye-laws of the Society, no grievance of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Society could be entertained on that count.
Thus, we find that the appeal is devoid of any substance. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER Appeal stands dismissed.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 11th September, 2012 [Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER KVS