National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Adarsh Nagar Pragatisheel Sehkari Awas ... vs Chet Ram & 23 Ors. on 1 February, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3119 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 19/07/2017 in Appeal No. 270/2010 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. ADARSH NAGAR PRAGATISHEEL SEHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SH. MAHIPAL SINGH, HAVING OFFICE AT G-276, H.I.G. SECTOR 11, PRATAP VIHAR, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHET RAM & 23 ORS. S/O. SH. RATAN LAL, R/O. 62-D-1, RAILWAY COLONY, TUGLAKABAD, NEW DELHI 2. NANAK SINGH S/O. SH. KANAHYA LAL, R/O. 54-D, RAILWAY COLONY, TUGLAKABAD NEW DELHI 3. KM. SEEMA SHARMA D/O. JAGAR RAM,R/O. 22-A, RAILWAY COLONY, TUGLAKABAD NEW DEHLI 4. SHYAM LAL S/O. SH. BHUSAN R/O. 3151/C, DHARAMPURA GALI NO. 4, KAILASH NAGAR, DELHI 5. SMT. SUDESH KUMARI W/O. LT. SH. GOPAL DASS CHHABRA R/O. F-16, VISHWAKARMA COLONY, M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI 6. DINESH KUMAR S/O. GOPAL DASS CHHABRA R/O. F-16, VISHWAKARMA COLONY, M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI 7. HEMANT KUMAR S/O. GOPAL DASS CHHABRA R/O. F-16, VISHWAKARMA COLONY, M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI 8. HAR BHAGAWAN DASS GOSAIN S/O. CHANDU RAM, R/O. 257-258, DDA JANTA FLATS PUL PREHLADPUR SURAJ KUND ROAD NEW DELHI 9. SMT. SATYAWATI W/O. LT. BHIKAMBER SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 86, MAUGROLI TEHSIL JEWAR, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH 10. SANJEEV SHARMA S/O. LT. BHIKAMBER SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 86, MAUGROLI TEHSIL JEWAR, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH 11. NEERAJ SHARMA S/O. LT. BHIKAMBER SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 86, MAUGROLI TEHSIL JEWAR, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH 12. SMT. SAWITA W/O. RAJ KUMAR D/O. BHIKAMBER SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 83, MUNNATAGO TEHSIL JEWAR, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH 13. SUNITA W/O. SUNIL, D/O. BHIKAMBER SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 83, MUNNATAGO TEHSIL JEWAR, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH 14. SMT. VIJAI SHARMA, W/O. SHRI SANJAI D/O. BHIKAMBER SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 574, KHATRIWADA 4, SIKANDRA BAD, BULANDSHAHR UTTAR PRADESH 15. SMT. MANEESHA W/O. RAJ KUMAR, D/O. BHIKAMBER SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 22, BAMMKHERA PALWAL HARYANA 16. RAMESH KUMAR SINGHAL S/O. SH. SHIVCHARAN, R/O. 141, SHYAM COLONY, NEAR PATHWADI MANDIR, BALLABHGARH HARYANA 17. SMT. SWARAN KAUR, W/O. LT. PREETAM SINGH, R/O. 58-G, POCKET 4, PHASE I, MAYUR VIHAR DELHI-110091 18. RANJEET SINGH S/O. LT. PREETAM SINGH, R/O. 58-G, POCKET 4, PHASE I, MAYUR VIHAR DELHI-110091 19. KULDEEP SINGH S/O. LT. PREETAM SINGH, R/O. 58-G, POCKET 4, PHASE I, MAYUR VIHAR DELHI-110091 20. HARBINDER SINGH S/O. LT. PREETAM SINGH, R/O. 58-G, POCKET 4, PHASE I, MAYUR VIHAR DELHI-110091 21. SHYAM SUNDER SEHGAL S/O. SH.RAM LUBHAYA, R/O.BLOCK I, H.NO. 49-50, MOHAN GARDEN DELHI 22. CHATAR SINGH S/O. TEEKA RAM, R/O. 21A, RAILWAY COLONY, TUGLAKABAD NEW DELHI 23. ROHTASH SINGH S/O. SH. KANAHYA LAL, R/O. F-50, VASHWAKARMA COLONY, M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044 24. DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA S/O. GAYAN CHAND, R/O. H.NO. 65, IST FLOOR, GALI NO. 2, SRINAGAR, SAKURBASTI NEW DELHI ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 01 Feb 2018 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
FOR THE PETITIONER
:
MR. KSHITIJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE
PRONOUNCED ON : 1ST FEBRUARY 2018
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 19.07.2017, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 270/2015, "Chet Ram & Ors. vs Adarsh Nagar Pragatisheel Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd.", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 05.12.2009, passed by the District Forum Ghaziabad in consumer complaint No. 1028/1998, filed by Chet Ram respondent No. 1 and 14 other complainants, dismissing all the complaints for lack of jurisdiction, was set aside. The District Forum was directed to decide all the matters in accordance with law, holding that the consumer fora had the jurisdiction to take cognisance of the complaints in question.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that 15 different complaints were filed before the District Forum by Chet Ram & Ors. (out of these 15 persons, 13 persons filed appeal before the State Commission) against the opposite party (OP) Adarsh Nagar Pragatisheel Sehkari Awas Samiti and its office bearers, alleging deficiency in service on their part, stating that the OPs had failed to deliver the possession of the plots in question, despite receiving consideration for the same. It was prayed that possession be delivered to them in accordance with the allotment letters issued, and the registered sale-deeds already executed in their favour. In addition, compensation for mental harassment etc. and litigation cost should also be paid.
3. In the reply filed on behalf of the OPs before the District Forum, it was stated that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to take cognisance of the said complaints. Moreover, the sale-deeds in question, were executed in the year 1991, whereas the complaints made in the year 1998 were barred by limitation. It was further stated that the land in question, had been acquired by the U.P. Government for some development purpose and hence, the complainants could receive compensation from the Government. It was also stated that the issue could be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction only.
4. The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, dismissed all 15 consumer complaints, saying that under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the dispute between the Society and its members could be heard only by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies or its officers. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, 13 of the complainants challenged the same by way of a single appeal, Appeal No. 270/2010 before the State Commission. The said Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum, saying that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was an additional remedy; hence, the consumer fora had the jurisdiction to decide the consumer complaints. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the OP has challenged the same by way of the present revision petition before this Commission.
5. During preliminary hearing before us, it was averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 15 different complaints had been filed before the State Commission, in which there was no common cause of action. The complainants could, therefore, not join hands and file a common appeal before the State Commission. The order passed by the State Commission in the common appeal filed by 13 of the 15 complainants, was perverse in the eyes of law. The learned counsel further stated that some of the complainants had died during the pendency of the appeal before the State Commission and hence, their membership with the cooperative society came to an end. The LRs could not demand any right in the land in question as per law. The learned counsel further stated that the land in question had already been acquired by the State Government of UP and hence, the petitioner Society was no longer the owner of the land in question.
6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
7. The main issue for consideration in the present revision petition is whether the consumer fora had the jurisdiction to take cognisance of the consumer complaints in question, keeping in view the fact that the dispute between a cooperative society and its members could be decided under the provisions of the cooperative law. In this regard, it shall be worthwhile to quote section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under:-
"3. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force."
8. While passing the impugned order, the State Commission has referred to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in various matters from time to time, in which it has been brought out that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was an additional remedy and hence, the jurisdiction of the consumer fora was not barred to entertain such complaints, even if the same could be settled under the provisions of the Cooperative Law. In this regard, reference has been made to the case, "The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society versus M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs" [AIR 2004 SC 448], in which, it was stated that section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, did not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to adjudicate upon disputes between a cooperative society and its members. The State Commission have also relied upon an order made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M.D., Orissa Coop. Housing Corpn. Ltd. vs. K.S. Sudarshan" [Civil Appeal No. 36/2003 decided on 29.04.2009],.
9. Based on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted above, the State Commission have rightly brought out that consumer fora do have the jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaints in question. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error which may require any modification in the same. Moreover, the objections raised by the petitioners that 13 complainants could not join hands to file a common appeal etc. are merely technical in nature. In so far as the right of the LRs of the complainants who have already died is concerned, the issue can be decided when the case is heard on merits.
10. Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER