State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prem Shankar Agarwal vs President/Secretary, The Csio ... on 16 February, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 307 of 2017 Date of Institution 12.12.2017 Date of Decision 16.02.2018 Prem Shanker Agrawal, aged 65 years, son of Late Shri D.P. Agrawal, resident of H.No. 553, The C.S.I.O. Employees Co- operative House Building Society Ltd. (1st), Vigyan Vihar, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh (U.T) - 160047. .....Appellant/Complainant. Versus 1. President/Secretary, The C.S.I.O. Employees Co- operative House Building Society Ltd. (1st), Vigyan Vihar, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh. 2. Mr. S.K. Mago (Ex-President), resident of H.No. 543, The C.S.I.O. Employees Co- operative House Building Society Ltd. (1st), Vigyan Vihar, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh (U.T) - 160047. 3. Mr. Prem Das (Ex-Secretary), resident of H.No. 555, The C.S.I.O. Employees Co- operative House Building Society Ltd. (1st), Vigyan Vihar, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh (U.T) - 160047. 4. Mr. Dharam Pal Goel (Ex-President), resident of H.No. 539, The C.S.I.O. Employees Co- operative House Building Society Ltd. (1st), Vigyan Vihar, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh (U.T) - 160047. 5. The Addl. Registrar (Exercising powers of Registrar Cooperative Societies), O/o Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government Press Building, U.T., 1st Floor, Sector 18, Chandigarh - 160018. 6. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Inspector (A) Grade-1 (Retd.), resident of H.No. 298, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh - 160015. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh. G.L.Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant/ complainant.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.10.2017, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum' only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.758 of 2016 with liberty to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased House No. 553 in The C.S.I.O. Employees Coop. House Building Society Ltd. on General Power of Attorney (GPA) from Sh.Amar Nath. It was stated that the Chandigarh Administration had floated a scheme/policy to transfer the share/flat in the name of GPA holders vide letter dated 02.03.2009. It was further stated that the complainant applied to the Opposite Parties for transfer of share/flat bearing No. 553, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh in his name, for which, he also paid all the dues including transfer fee of Rs.25,000/- and submitted all the requisite documents to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties transferred the shares/flats of other similarly situated persons after getting the notice published in two newspapers, but his name (complainant) was not included in that notice. The reason cited for not doing the needful was due to non-payment of the amount of Rs.23,500/-, which was demanded by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 20.4.2011 along with notice publication charges & processing fee, which was arbitrary & illegal. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the "Act" only), was filed.
3. After issuance of notice, on 18.11.2016 Ms. Kanta Lamdharia, Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 and filed her Vakalatnama and the case was fixed for 02.01.2017 for filing reply and evidence/affidavit. On 02.01.2017 Sh.Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 and sought time to file reply & evidence. Adjournment was granted subject to payment of Rs.300/- as cost and the case was fixed for 22.02.2016. On that date, none put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 for filing reply and evidence, therefore, they (Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4) were proceeded against exparte.
4. In its written statement, Opposite Party No.5, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the Forum has no power to adjudicate the complaint under summary procedure provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as such, the complaint is liable to be relegated to the Court of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh for proper decision. It was further stated that the complainant applied for transfer of the flat in his name and the same was not transferred due to non-depositing of the amount, as demanded by the Society. Thereafter, the complainant approached to the Court of Joint Registrar and the same was decided against him with the direction to deposit an amount of Rs.23,500/-, alongwith prescribed fee vide order dated 06.03.2013 but inspite of the said order, he failed to deposit the said amount, therefore, the share/flat could not be transferred in his name. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
5. In its written statement, Opposite Party No.6, took almost similar pleas as taken by Opposite Party No.5 in its written statement. It was stated that the entire fault was on the part of the complainant because he failed to deposit the charges of Rs.23,500/-, due to which, the flat could not be transferred in his name. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
6. The complainant filed separate replications/rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Parties No.5 & 6, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written versions of Opposite Parties No.5 & 6.
7. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
8. After hearing complainant in person, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, Sh.Jagdish Chander, Inspector of Opposite Party No.5 & Opposite Party No.6 in person and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
11. After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.
12. Counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint merely on the ground that the question involved in the complaint is complicated, which is to be adjudicated by the Civil Court by recording detailed evidence of the parties, whereas, no complicated question of law and facts is involved rather the matter in question is simple in nature. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
13. The core question that falls for consideration before us is that whether the Forum rightly passed the impugned order. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. It is the admitted fact that the complainant purchased House No.553 in The CSIO Employees Coop. House Building Society Ltd. on GPA. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant applied to the Opposite Parties for transfer of the aforesaid flat in his name but the same was not transferred due to non-payment of fee of Rs.23,500/-, which the Opposite Parties demanded vide letter dated 20.04.2011 alongwith notice publication charges and processing fee. Even Opposite Party No.5 in its written statement stated that the complainant approached the Court of Joint Registrar but the same was dismissed against him with a direction to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.23,500/- alongwith prescribed fee vide order dated 06.03.2013. It is pertinent to note that Opposite Party No.6 also stated in its written statement that without payment of aforesaid fee of Rs.23,500/- the share/flat could not be transferred in the name of the complainant. Even the appellant/complainant failed to convince this Commission that now the complaint is similar in nature. So, we are of the view that entire fault was on the part of the appellant/complainant, who failed to deposit the required fee of Rs.23,500/- especially when the said fee was paid by other Members of the society. We are also of the opinion that the Forum rightly held in para Nos. 9 to 11, which reads thus :-
"9. After going through the facts & circumstances of the case, perusing the record and hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that the matter in question involves complicated & complex questions of law and facts, which cannot be adjudicated by this Forum under summary procedure. The dispute in question requires recording of detailed evidence as well as cross examination of the witnesses. Considering all these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for summary adjudication before this Forum. The questions involved in this complaint can be decided by way of detailed evidence and production of witnesses before the Civil Court.
10. While arriving at the above conclusion, we also put reliance on Indian Acryclics Limited Versus F.E. Hardcastle & Company Private Limited & Others, IV(2007) CPJ 387 (NC) wherein it has been held that "Complicated questions of law and facts involved - Dispute not adjudicable in summary jurisdiction - Relegated to Civil Court."
11. In view of the above factual position, we deem it appropriate to dismiss this complaint, with no order as to costs, with a liberty to the complainant to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. We order accordingly. The complaint stands dismissed in above terms."
Hence, the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
16.02.2018 Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER rb