State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Saraswati Kunj vs Reeta Jain on 6 February, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 618 of 2017 Date of Institution: 22.05.2017 Date of Decision : 06.02.2018 Saraswati Kunj Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Wazirabad, Gurgaon, through its Authorized Person. Appellant-Opposite Party Versus Reeta Jain wife of Sh. Arun Kumar Jain, resident of A-167, Sushant Lok-I, Gurgaon and presently residing at 123, Anupam Apartment, M.B. Road, Opposite Saket, New Delhi-110068. Respondent-Complainant CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member Argued: Shri R.D. Gupta, Advocate for appellant Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj and Shri B.B. Jain, Advocates for the respondents. O R D E R NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Saraswati Kunj Cooperative House Building Society Limited-opposite party (for short, 'Society') is in appeal against the order dated May 01st, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short, 'District Forum') whereby it directed the Society to execute the conveyance deed in favour of Reeta Jain-complainant within 30 days. The District Forum also directed the Society to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment, litigation expenses etc to the complainant. 2. The complainant was member of the Society bearing Membership No.1521. She was allotted residential plot No.1543, Part II, Phase 1, measuring 250 square yards, Village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon amounting to Rs.7,12,700 vide Allotment Letter dated July 01st, 2001 (Exhibit C-13) issued by the Society. The complainant also paid Rs.43,470/- as registration charges to execute the conveyance deed. The possession letter (Exhibit C-14) was issued by the Society on September 26th, 2003. Thereafter, Allotment cum Possession Letter (Exhibit C-15) dated June 25th, 2004 was also issued by the Society. The complainant approached the Society to get the conveyance deed executed in her favour but the same was not executed. Hence, she filed complaint before the District Forum. 3. The Society, in its, written version pleaded that the complainant was not the member of the Society because as per the record Sh. M.V. Murti was the member having Membership No.1521. It was denied that the complainant was allotted Plot No.1543 by the Society and in case any allotment letter was issued in favour of the complainant, the same was manipulated affair at the behest of the then President of the Society. It has also been denied that the complainant had paid Rs.7,12,500/-, that is, the price of the plot and Rs.43,470/- as registration charges for getting the conveyance deed executed. 4. The complainant filed her affidavit in support of her evidence and relied upon the following documents:- 1.
Letter dated May 15th, 2014 Exhibit C-1
2. Information regarding membership and plot number dated January 22nd, 2005 Exhibit C-2
3. Pass Book Exhibit C-3
4. Payment Receipts Exhibit C-4 & C-5
5. Certificates dated January 18th, 2005 issued by Punjab National Bank Exhibit C-6 & C-7
6. Copy of Cash Order dated May 06th, 2014 Exhibit C-8
7. Ledger of Punjab National Bank Exhibit C-9 & C-10
8. Copy of Cash Order Exhibit C-11
9. Deposit Slip dated May 06th, 2004 of Punjab National Bank Exhibit C-12
10. Letter dated July 01st, 2001 Exhibit C-13
11. Possession Letter dated September 26th, 2003 Exhibit C-14
12. Allotment cum Possession Letter dated June 25th, 2003 Exhibit C-15
13. Tentative List of Members Exhibit C-16
5. Shri R.D. Gupta, counsel for the Society has stated at bar that except the written version, no other evidence was led by the Society before the District Forum to rebut the case of the complainant.
6. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum by impugned order dated May 01st, 2017 as stated above.
7. In appeal, before this Commission, learned counsel for the Society has filed an application to lead additional evidence comprising of following documents:-
1.
Gazette Notification dated June 06th, 2016 Annexure A-1
2. Order dated September 30th, 2015 passed by Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana Annexure A-2
3. Orders dated September 09th, 2016 and March 15th, 2017 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Annexure A-3 & A-4
4. Office Note dated October 20th, 2015 Annexure A-5
5. List of Members and Ledger Annexure A-6
8. Counsel for the complainant has contested the application submitting that at this belated stage, the Society should not be allowed to place reliance on the documents referred to above.
9. To clinch the issue in a better manner and even if, the documents could not be produced before the District Forum for one reason or the other, this Commission is alive to the proposition that the proceedings in consumer cases are summary in nature. Thus, the application is allowed.
10. Learned counsel for the Society has urged that the complainant failed to prove that she was member of the Society bearing registration No.1521 because as per photocopy of document (Annexure A-6) against registration No.1521 name of M.V. Murli is mentioned and also in the copy of ledger, name of account holder is mentioned M.V. Murli.
11. He has further submitted that Government of Haryana vide notification (Annexure A-1) constituted Commission comprising of Sh. S.P. Sharma, I.A.S (Retd.)-Chairman, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, District Town Planner, Gurgaon, Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Gurgaon-Members to submit the report. The Commission has submitted detailed report showing that the complainant was not the member of the Society.
12. Firstly, this Commission would take the evidence led by the complainant to prove that she was the member of the Society. Vide letter dated May 15th, 2014 (Exhibit C-1) issued by the Society, the complainant was shown as member of the Society having Membership No.1521 and Plot No.1543 measuring 250 square yards allotted to her. In the Passbook (Exhibit C-3), the complainant had been shown to be the member of the Society at Serial No.1521. In this passbook, an entry has also been made to the effect that the complainant paid Rs.7,12,500/- and Rs.43,470/- respectively to the Society vide demand draft bearing No.516099 (photocopy Exhibit C-8) and Rs.43,470/- dated July 18th, 2004 (Exhibit C-7). The Society issued receipts (Exhibit C-4 & C-5) respectively in this regard to the complainant that the aforesaid amount was received by the Society from the complainant. The certificates (Exhibit C-6 & C-7) issued by Punjab National Bank proved that the aforesaid amount was paid by the complainant to the Society. The copy of the saving account maintained with Punjab National Bank by the complainant (Exhibit C-9) has also been placed on record to prove that the amount was paid by the complainant to the Society. The matter does not rest here. The Society issued Allotment Letter (Exhibit C-13) to the complainant mentioning her membership number 1521, Plot No.1543, area of the plot 250 square yards and the price of the plot, that is, Rs.7,12,700/-. The possession letter dated September 26th, 2003 (Exhibit C-14) was also issued by the Society in the name of the complainant. The Allotment cum Possession Letter (Exhibit C-15) dated June 25th, 2004 was also issued in favour of the complainant. Further list of members of the Society (Exhibit C-16) has also been placed on record wherein the complainant has been shown as a member at Serial Number 1521. In comparison to the evidence referred to above in detail, the evidence which the Society has placed on record now, that is, photocopy of a paper (Annexure A-6) wherein it is nowhere mentioned from where this piece of paper has been obtained by the Society. It has not been attested by the Society. It does not show what this paper connotes. It only mentions the name of M.V. Murli. Again the copy of the ledger in which also it is shown that the payment of Rs.7,12,500/-was made through cheque No.516099 and Rs.43,470/- through cheque No.284861 rather these cheques were issued by the complainant in favour of the Society. So, by these documents, it is not possible to hold that the complainant was not the member of the Society having Membership No.1521 and also that she had not paid the price of the plot and charges for execution of conveyance deed to the Society. So far as appointment of the Commission by the State Government and its report and the letter of Registrar Cooperative Societies are concerned, it carries no weight because in the report it has nowhere been stated that the complainant was not the member of the Society.
13. In view of above, the order passed by the District Forum is perfectly correct and requires no interference. The appeal is dismissed.
14. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced 06.02.2018 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President UK sa