State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nakoda Griha Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, ... vs Sou.Annapurna S.Patil & Ors on 11 September, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1138 OF 2008 Date of filing : 20/08/2008 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.35/2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SOLAPUR Date of order : 11/09/2008 @ MISC. APPLICATION NO.1588/2008 Nakoda Griha nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Solapur Through Chairman Shri Babubhai S.Mehta Ro.Geetadham, Shelagi Road Bhawani peth, Solapur Appellant/org.O.P. V/s. 1. Sou.Annapurna S.Patil R/o.Sub Plot no.18 2. Jain Sanskruitik Sanrakshak Sangh, Solapur through Shri Harshavardhan R.Shah(Trustee) R/o.Sub Plot no.10 3. Shri Najaguni Mallappa Thambkar R/o.Sub Plot no.16 4. Manisha V.Hanchate (Hibare) R/o.Telangi Paccha Peth, Solapur 5. Kum.Meenakshi A.Chavan R/o.Sub Plot no.14 6. Shri Mohan V.Pimpare R/o.Sub Plot no.19 7. Sou.Swati S.Shaha R/o.Sub Plot no.11 Sr.no.1,2,3,5,6 & 7 all resident of Nakoda Griha nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Budhwar peth, Solapur Respondents/org.complainants Corum: Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member
Present:
Mr.S.Sakhare-Advocate for the appellant.
: ORAL ORDER:
Per Justice Mr. B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Heard Mr.S.Sakhare-Advocate for the appellant.
District Consumer Forum, Solapur allowed the consumer complaint filed by seven members of the Co-operative Housing Society and directed Co-operative Society to provide basic amenities like internal roads, drainage and electrification and providing place for transformer. District Consumer Forum awarded Rs.5000/- to the complainants for mental harassment and Rs.2000/- by way of cost of the litigation.
Ld.Advocate for the appellant argued that the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the members of the Co-operative Society. Argument of Ld.Advocate Mr.Sakhare cannot be accepted.
Honble Supreme Court has held in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society V/s. M. Lalitha (dead) through Legal Representatives, reported in 2004 CTJ 1 (Supreme Court) (CP), that the members of the Co-operative Society can file consumer complaint against the Co-operative Society and such a complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
Ld.Advocate Mr.Sakhare argued that the seven members, who have filed one single complaint should have filed 7 separate consumer complaints. Law does not expect multiplicity of proceedings. Moreover the complainant is defined in Section 2(b)(iv) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Complainant means one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest.
The members of the Co-operative Housing society having a common complaint about road, place for transformer, drainage facility and electrification can file one single complaint against the Society.
Ld.Advocate Mr.Sakhare then argued that complainant nos.1 and 4 purchased plots on 29/3/05. Therefore their complaint is time barred. This is a common complaint filed by the members of the Co-operative Housing Society asking to provide basic amenities like road, drainage and electrification. Such a common compliant having common interest is perfectly maintainable in law. Therefore question of limitation does not arise. The other members have approached the District Consumer Forum well within limitation.
Ld.Advocate Mr.Sakhare submits that report submitted by Society is not properly considered. Forum below has considered every aspect of the matter and has rightly appreciated the documentary evidence placed on record. Findings arrived at by the District Consumer Forum are perfectly legal and correct. No interference is called for. Hence we pass following order:-
ORDER
1.
Appeal stands dismissed.
2. Appellant has already deposited Rs.25,000/-. Amount awarded by the District Consumer Forum be paid to the original complainants towards part satisfaction of the award and remaining amount be refunded to the appellant.
3. Misc.
application stands disposed of.
4. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.R.Khanzode) (B.B.Vagyani) Judicial Member President Ms.