State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri N B Mhatre vs Gurukrupa Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd & Ors on 2 May, 2013
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/10/13
SHRI
N B MHATRE
22/71
OSHIWARA SAGAR APT CO-OP HSG NEAR KAMAT CLUB NEW LINK ROAD ANDHERI MUMBAI 400 053
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1.
GURUKRUPA CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LTD
SECTOR
III CIDCO COLONY A WING SANPADA NAVI MUMBAI
Maharastra
2.
Shri. A. K. Pawar (Present and formal Secretary)
Gurukrupa
Co. Op. Housing Society, Ltd., Sector III, CIDCO Colony, A Wing Sanpada
(E), Navi Mumbai - 400 705.
3.
Shri. Mhapralkar (Chairman)
Gurukrupa
Co. Op. Housing Society, Ltd., Sector III, CIDCO Colony, A Wing Sanpada
(E), Navi Mumbai - 400 705.
4.
Shri. Salil Kulkarni (Secretary)
Gurukrupa
Co. Op. Housing Society, Ltd., Sector III, CIDCO Colony, A Wing Sanpada
(E), Navi Mumbai - 400 705.
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE
MR. S.B.Sawarkar MEMBER
PRESENT:
Ms.Madhavi
Gujar-Advocate for the complainant
Mr.S.P.Borhade-Advocate
for opponent nos.1 to 3
Ms.Ashwini
Landge, Advocate proxy for Mr.Manoj Mhambrey-Advocate for opponent
no.4.
ORDER
Per Honble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of opponent no.1-Gurukripa Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. for not refunding the amount of excess non occupation charges recovered along with interest as per the directions of the Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, CIDCO, Navi Mumbai. It may be clarified that as per the order dated 08/02/2007, an amount which is claimed to have been recovered in excess pertaining to non occupation charges of `6481/- was accordingly refunded after the resolution of the society passed on 08/04/2007. This payment was duly received by the complainant on 21/04/2007.
Opponent nos.2 to 4 are impleaded either as existing or then office bearers i.e.Honarary Secretary or Honarary President of opponent no.1 society.
Undisputed facts are that complainant N.B.Mhatre, who is a member of opponent no.1- Gurukripa Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (herein after referred as society) accordingly allotted one tenement/flat in their society. However, N.B.Mhatre never occupied the flat personally but gave it on Leave and License basis to third persons.
Accordingly, society used to levy non-occupation charges to complainant Mhatre as per the bye-laws. It is the grievance of the complainant that as per the notification issued by the Government dated 01/08/2001, the society ought to have charged non occupation charges not more than 10% of the maintenance charges excluding the corporation taxes levied on him in respect of the flat in the society. The society accordingly accountingly re-resolved to levy these charges as per the resolution passed in General Body. It is the grievance of the complainant that the society ought to have levied such revised charges from 01/01/2001 but it had given effect to it from September 2002 and, therefore, complainant had taken up the matter with Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, CIDCO, Navi Mumbai, who directed to refund said excess amount of `6481/- as per his order dated 08/02/2007. Said amount was refunded by the society to the complainant who was present in the Managing Committee meeting and the complainant signed the voucher dated 08/04/2007. The society also endorsed these facts as per its letter of the even date.
As earlier pointed out, the grievance of the complainant is that opponent no.1 society failed to return the excess amount along with interest and, therefore, relief is claimed asking the interest @ 18% p.a. In addition to it, sum of `20 lakhs is claimed by way of compensation for intentional agony and harassment caused and mental torture suffered by the complainant, further `25,000/- are claimed as costs on various proceedings with the Registrar including expenses incurred on correspondence and travelling by the complainant and an amount of `40,000/- are claimed, which the complainant was required to spent unnecessarily on repairs of his flat. Complainant further gave details of his claim of `20 lakhs, supra, by carrying out the amendment.
Opponent nos.1 to 3 opposed the consumer complaint by filing their written version and opponent no.4 filed a separate written version and opposed the complaint. Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written version of opponent nos.1 to 3.
Heard both the parties. Perused the record. As earlier pointed out excess amount of `6480/- claims to have been recovered by the society from the complainant as non- occupation charges is already refunded to the complainant. Thus, deficiency in service on the part of the society, if any, for not refunding the amount collected in excess of the occupation charges, no more survives.
Besides that, since there is an order of Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, CIDCO, Navi Mumbai dated 08/02/2007, such refund is made in compliance of the said order. If it is a case of the complainant that the said order is not fully complied with by not paying interest over the refunded amount, then in those circumstances, it could be a matter of execution of the order dated 08/02/2007 of the Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, CIDCO, Navi Mumbai and it can never be a case falling under deficiency in service on the part of the society within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In spite of this, this consumer complaint is filed. It may be further clarified that referring to the order dated 18/02/2007 of the Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, CIDCO, Navi Mumbai, copy of which is placed on record at complaint compilation page 82 at Exhibit B, clearly indicates that there was no order of the Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, CIDCO, Navi Mumbai to pay any interest over an amount of `6481/-. Society was only directed to take steps to refund the said amount. Society, as earlier pointed out, accordingly, refunded the amount on 08/04/2007.
Under the circumstances, the consumer complaint filed on 22/01/2010 thereafter is not only misconceived but indicates a clear exercise of abuse of process of law.
There are some reliefs claimed in respect of repairs carried out by the complainant, supra, referring to para 13 of the complaint. In fact the complaint does not refer to any para 13 (it does not exist) but there is a statement made in para 12 and 14 in this respect. It refers to the repairs to his flat carried out by the complainant and incurring expenses of `40,000/-. To recover the said amount by way of reimbursement will not be a consumer dispute. Complainant also failed to show that the repairs carried out are the one falling which ought to have been carried out by the society.
Furthermore, since the repairs were carried out by him in the year 2007, somewhere on or before 22/04/2007, the consumer complaint filed on 22/01/2010 is clearly time barred as far as this relief is concerned (if at all consumer complaint is maintainable).
For the reasons stated above we find that complainant miserably failed to establish his case to claim compensation from the opponents on the basis of alleged deficiency in service. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER Consumer complaint stands dismissed.
Complainant to bear its own costs and pay `10,000/- as costs to opponent no.1 -Gurukripa Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. and `5,000/- as costs to each of the opponent nos.2 to 4.
Pronounced on 2nd May, 2013.
[HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar] MEMBER Ms.