State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jitendra Kumar Sharma vs The Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance ... on 19 March, 2018
Daily Order IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Dates of Arguments: 19.03.18 Date of Decision: 22.03.18 Complaint No.1957/2017 In the matter of: Jitender Kumar Sharma (Member, Veer Puru Cooperative Group Housing Society R/o 60 FF, My Floor-2, TDI City, Kundli-131030, District Sonipat, Haryana. M: 7827816621 Versus The Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DCHFC) 6, Siri Fort Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi-110049. Shri Ravi Kumar Jain, Recovery Officer of DCHFC, 6, Siri Fort Institutional Area August Kranti Marg, New Delhi-110049. Phone No. 26495506, 26494508 Vewer Puru Cooperative Group Housing Society, Plot No. 22, Puru Apartments, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085. M. 996889286 LL 27567807 CORAM Hon'ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial) Hon'ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member
1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL) JUDGEMENT The case of the complainant is that he is a senior citizen being 82 years old, he is Ph.D holder of Canadian University, childless, without pension, am original member of OP 1 married to Usha Sharma, Ph.D aged 74 years in frail health having no pension. Both of them were living on hard earned savings till 07.10.17. OP society forced them to sell their House No. A-35, Puru Apartments because of illegal threat of arrest, eviction, coercion by OP 1 and Shri Ravi Kumar Jain, Collector Grade /Recovery Officer of OP 1. Said Recovery Officer is OP 2. OP 2 did so to illegally execute recovery of false loan claim of Rs. 30,49,341/- deliberately using forged documents.
2. OP 1 is a govt. sponsored Housing Finance Cooperative Society that offers loan to Cooperative Group Housing Societies. Smt. Rinku Dugga, IAS is Managing Director and Shri Ravi Kumar Jain is Recovery Officer of OP 1. OP 1 styles itself as an Apex Cooperative Corporation and wields extraordinary influence with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, other concerned Govt. offices and use to its advantage against loanee Cooperative Societies and their Members. OP 2 exceeded its power, violated various provisions of law, knowingly used forged documents namely disbursement list of borrowers to disclose complainant as a Judgement Debtor without jurisdiction and executed illegal loan recovery of Rs. 30,49,341/-
3. OP 3 is currently a judgement debtor as OP 1 holds a decree against OP 3 under award dated 31.07.2001 passed by Arbitrator under Delhi Cooperative Societies Act.
4. Cooperative Society is a person as defined in Consumer Protection Act. The complainant served e-mail notice on OP 1 and its Managing Director on 31.01.17 /30.01.17 which was promptly sponsored by Shri Samer Izhar Siddique who called the complainant on Phone No. 9868929698. He had a long talk but no action was taken even after reminder on 23.03.17.
5. Cause of action arose on 29.04.16 when OP 1 wrote to DDA about final recovery of Rs.30,49,341/- from t he complainant.
6. OP 1 and OP 2 violated section 72 (2) Cooperative Societies Act dealing with procedure for recovery of debt. The same provides that recovery should firstly be made from the assets of the society and secondly from the members to the extent of their debt due to society
7. According to order dated 08.04.2003 passed by Registrar Cooperative Societies OP 3 has 15 unallotted LIG, MIG, HIG category flats which would yield enough funds to settle the claim of OP 1 and leave OP 3 with more than sufficient funds for maintenance/security and upkeep of their property. The same smacks of corruption on the part of OP 2 and the complainant is being punished for vision on this scam as he had complained to Registrar Cooperative Societies about the aforesaid unallotted flats being occupied by OP 2. Order dated 08.04.03 of Registrar Cooperative Societies mentioned the name of complainant.
8. Complainant cannot be declared a judgement debtor as per decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP ( C )6635/14 titled as Meenu Tomar vs. The Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors. decided on 24.05.16.
9. OP 1 admitted before Delhi Cooperative Tribunal as is clear from verdict dated 18.10.06 that there was no privity between individual members. Wrongful favours by OP 2 were not confined to OP 3 but extended to those past Managements/Secretaries and Presidents of OP 3 who were inducted by the Arbitrator in award dated 31.07.17. Instead of proceeding against the said misappropriations and requesting the Registrar Cooperative Societies and Police to initiate investigation in the big fraud, OP 1, its Managing Director and OP 2 sold flat at exorbitant prices at the cost of individual member with impunity during the time when entire society was mortgaged to OP 1. Neither the Arbitrator nor Delhi Cooperative Tribunal nor Registrar Cooperative Societies declared the complainant a judgement debtor or co-judgement debtor of OP 3.
10. There were hundreds of Cooperative Group Housing Societies in OP 1 and OP 2, Managing Committee of said Cooperative Group Housing Society in OP 1 and OP 2, Managing Committee of said Cooperative Group Society turned into property dealer in collision and conspiracy resulting in large scale selling of flats. Complainant was a original member of OP 3 and paid heavy price for being whistle blower on OP 1's corrupt practices.
11. In the year 2001 the complainant as newly elected President of OP 3 appeared before the Arbitrator and met for the first time OP 2. OP 2 started adopting ways of avoiding enquiry against Sh. Narsingh Arora, Sh. A.K.Vaid, Shri Yashpal Vaid, Shri Satish, Shri Nirmal Singh for mismanagement, burglary, misappropriation. Disbursement list of borrowers in which complainant's name at entry No. 61 was falsely forged by overwriting his name over the name of some other Sharma but the same left the date of birth unchanged. The said document was forged, fabricated on the letter head of OP 1 and submitted before Delhi Cooperative Tribunal as a part of affidavit of Narsingh Arora. Complainant never availed loan raised by society from OP 1. OP 1 and OP 2 very well know that society loan accounts had remained unaudited. The exorbitant amount of Rs. 30,49,341/- was extorted from the complainant under coercion. The acts of OP 1 and OP 2 had serious effect on the health of wife of complainant. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs. 30,49,341/- plus interest accruing from 29.03.16 at the compound interest of 22% charged by OP 1, Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for suffering of wife of the complainant and Rs. Three lakhs as compensation for harassment, intimidation etc. of complainant, directing investigations in the affairs of OP 1, directing CAG audit of OP 1.
12. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments at the admission stage. Prayer clause No. 4 & 5 are beyond the powers of State Commission.
13. We have carefully gone through the judgemnent in Meena Tomar vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies cited by the complainant. The same pertain to a different society which had plots in IP Extension, Patparganj, Delhi. It is true that dispute involved in the said case was regarding scope of judgement debtor but the facts being different, the same is not applicable in the present case.
14. The questions involved in the present complaint are disputed questions on facts which require lot of evidence both documentary and oral including cross examination of witness. It pertain to forgery, misappropriation of funds which cannot be done in summary proceedings under Consumer Protection Act. For this reliance can be placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Synco Industries vs. SBI AIR 2002 SC 568, Saurabh Prkash vs, DLF (2007) 1 SCC 228, Pawan Hans vs. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 71. Similar view was taken by National Commission in Deccan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Insurance Company III(2002) CPJ 68, Sirish Kritkar vs. State Bank of Patiala IV (2015) CPJ 154, P.N.Khanna vs. Bank of India II (2015) CPJ 54 NC.
15. OP 2 was discharging its statutory function which cannot be amenable to jurisdiction of consumer foras. On analogical grounds reliance can be placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.Goel vs. Collector of Stamps 1 (1996) CPJ III in which it was held that Registrar is not covered under Consumer Protection Act.
16. The complainant referred to section 70 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act to point out which disputes may be referred for arbitration. He also referred to section 83, Delhi Cooperative Societies Act to point out that dispute like the present one were covered within the meaning of dispute u/s 70 of the Act and can be decided in accordance with provision of said Act. We do not think tht the said provisions help complainant. Rather last line of sub-section (1) of section 83 lays down that no court or other tribunal or authorities shall have the jurisidiction to entertain and decide any proceedings in respect of such disputes. In a way this bars the jurisdiction of consumer court.
The complaint is dismissed in limini.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL)