State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Aniruddha Mallick vs Ms. Bratati Chakravarty & Another on 5 January, 2010
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/284 DATE OF FILING : 29.07.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 05.01.2010 APPELLANT Mr. Aniruddha Mallick S/o Shri Ashoke Kumar Mallick 2L, Bediadanga 1st lane, P.S. Kasba Koklkata-700 039. RESPONDENTS 1. Ms. Bratati Chakravarty W/o Sri Tapan Chakravarty Residing at P-7/118, P.G.M. Shah Road, Golf Gardens Kolkata-700 095. 2. Purbalaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. A registered Co-operative Society Registered under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 Having its registered office at 4/1, Bediadanga 1st Lane P.S. Kasba Kolkata-700 039. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.Nayak, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. P.K.Basu, Ld. Advocate (Res.1) Mr. B.Prasad, Ld. Advocate (Res.1) Mr. S.K.Das, Ld. Advocate (Res.2) : O R D E R :
MR.
P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER This Appeal arose out of judgement and order dt.
26.6.09 in DCDRF, South 24 Parganas Complaint Case No. 18 of 2008 wherein the complainant Mr. Aniruddha Mallick filed the complaint case against the Ops, (1) Ms. Bratati Chakravarty and (2) Purbalaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. on allegation of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on part of the Ops.
The Complainants case, in brief, was that Mr. Mallick agreed to purchase from Ms. Bratati Chakravarty Flat No. 29, Block-5 on the first floor, eastern side in Purbalaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. located at 4/1, Bediadanga 1st Lane, Kolkata-39. While the complainant agreed to purchase the said flat under Purbalaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the given tenement was under mortgage to Allahabad Bank, Gariahat Branch, wherefrom the OP No. 1 obtained loan creating equitable mortgage of the said flat at the time of purchase of the flat. In order to free the tenement from equitable mortgage towards sale to the complainant, the complainant paid to the OP no. 1 Rs. 2,50,000/- towards earnest money being part of the entire consideration money of Rs. 10,50,000/-, when the complainant and the OP No. 1 entered into an agreement for sale on 25.3.07. It was agreed between the parties that the OP No. 1 would take all steps towards clearing outstanding dues to Allahabad Bank, Gariahat Branch and redeem the charge in her favour and would also obtain No-Objection from the said bank within 30 days from the date of execution of the said agreement and would thus make the title of the flat free from all encumbrances. It was also agreed that the OP No. 1 would cooperate in obtaining permission from the appropriate authority towards transfer of the said flat and the balance amount of Rs. 8.00 lacs would be paid within 90 days from the date of freeing the said flat from mortgage by the OP No. 1, provided necessary approval is obtained from the officials of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as also from Purbalaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the OP No. 2, towards necessary transfer of the said flat. Accordingly, the OP No. 1 undertook to execute the papers required for the transfer of the said flat to the appropriate officials of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, when it was further agreed that the final transaction would be completed within 90 days from the date of freeing the scheduled flat from the mortgage by the OP No. 1 while necessary approval would be obtained from the appropriate officials of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
It was also agreed that after complying with all the terms and conditions of the contract if the complainant refused to complete the transaction under the agreement, then the sum of Rs. 50,000/- paid against the earnest money would be forfeited and the balance amount would be returned to the complainant at a time. The complainant alleged inter alia that subsequent to the execution of the given agreement for sale and after having received Rs. 2,50,000/- towards earnest money, the OP No. 1 avoided to complete the sale on various pleas, instead of obtaining prior permission from the authority towards the given sale. Stating that in July07 the OP No. 1 intimated the complainant that the mortgage had since been discharged on redemption and the scheduled property was freed from charges and she would thereafter take all possible steps for obtaining permission from the appropriate officials of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, but this was not actually done and after the complainant pursued the matter with the OP No. 1 regarding the given permission from the officials of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the OP No. 1 assured that such permission would be available very shortly. Even in the last week of December07 the OP No. 1 assured the complainant that the sale would be completed upon obtaining permission from appropriate officials of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. On 31.12.07 the OP No. 1 arbitrarily terminated the agreement dt. 25.3.07 alleging delay in the matter of granting permission on part of the appropriate officials of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Further, in July, 2009 the OP No. 1 sent a cheque for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank towards refund of the earnest money accepted by her, which cheque the complainant did not encash till date.
Contending that the complainant was under no obligation to pursue permission from the officials of Registrar of Co-operative Societies the complainant stated that he could not be held responsible for not having permission in any way and, therefore, the OP No. 1 had no right to cancel the agreement for sale arbitrarily at her sweet will and the said agreement is well subsisting and the said cancellation is not as per provisions of Clause-9 of the agreement dt. 25.3.07. Accordingly, alleging deficiency of service on part of OP No. 1 the complainant filed the complaint case praying inter alia for direction upon the Ops to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the said flat in favour of the complainant and for delivery and possession of the said flat upon payment of the rest amount of consideration money by the complainant as per terms of the agreement along with a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs towards compensation due on account of harassment/damages and mental agony caused to him and also prayed for a reasonable amount towards litigation cost.
The OP No. 1 namely Ms. Bratati Chakravarty, entered appearance and contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the dispute between the parties being wholly civil in nature, remedy, if any, lay before a competent Civil Court and not in any Consumer Forum. It was also argued that in terms of the agreement the complainant only undertook to sign the papers and documents for the purpose of getting permission from the officials of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which she did, when given papers were submitted to the OP No. 2 namely Purbalaya Housing Co-operative Society, and the OP No. 1 visited the appropriate office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on a number of occasions. But inspite of best efforts on her part no approval for transfer of the said flat in favour of the complainant could be had from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, when in terms of the agreement the complainant was to take all necessary steps towards obtaining requisite permission from appropriate officials of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. But the complainant did nothing towards that nor did he cooperate with the OP No. 1 in such effort of her and, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the performance of the complainant she was compelled to cancel the said agreement and refund the amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs to the complainant by cheque drawn on Allahabad Bank, received towards payment of earnest money. However, the complainant for his own reasons did not encash the cheque and instead, filed this complaint case on false, frivolous and untenable grounds.
Contending that in terms of relevant acts and rules of the Co-operative Societies she had no authority to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant without prior permission from appropriate officials of Registrar of Co-operative Societies it was stated that while the mortgage of the flat was released from the bank as far back as on 4.4.07 the complainant never took steps to obtain approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and thus due to delay and non-cooperation from the complainant, the agreement had to be cancelled and after the cancellation of the agreement the Ld. Forum had no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the same as the complainant had no consumer relationship with the OP No. 1.
Denying all other allegations levelled against her the OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
The OP No. 2 namely Purbalaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. did not contest the case.
The matter was heard from the complainant and the OP No. 1 when in course of hearing the complainant made a prayer for amendment of the complaint, which the Ld. Forum rejected.
This order was challenged before the Honble State Commission in a Revisional Application when the Honble State Commission dismissed the Revisional Application.
After hearing the Ld. Forum below passed its judgement and order as under :-
The case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order in the Ld. Forum below the complainant in the Forum and the Appellant here stated inter alia that the Ld. Forum below failed to appreciate that the agreement for sale dt. 25.3.07 entered into between the Appellant/Complainant and the OP No. 1/Respondent was under the provisions of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act and rules thereunder since the OP No. 1 was a member of the society under the relevant act. Stating that the Ld. Forum below did not appreciate that the given transaction of sale was likely to be regularized under the rules and provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and rules thereunder, when the report and objection of DRCS dt. 25.8.08 stating clearly that OP No. 1 wanted to enhance the sale price of the flat by making new agreement for sale, the Ld. Forum below did not consider that the membership of OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 stood terminated and in her place the Appellant was regularized as a member of the society. Arguing that the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 failed to release/free mortgage of her property within a period of 30 days, failing in a way to comply with the transaction within 90 days thereunder, when the Appellant/Complainant was all along ready with the money for getting the flat duly registered and was ready to take possession, the delay and subsequent arbitrary cancellation of the agreement was squarely untenable and to such extent the belated effort for refund of the earnest money of Rs. 2.50 lacs earlier accepted in terms of the agreement was purely an act of deficiency of service very much within the purview and jurisdiction under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended. Adding that refund of Rs. 2.50 lacs in July09 without any interest or compensation was a glaring example of injustice because the Appellant, in anticipation of the purchase and registration of the given flat had arranged for loan and made advance to the OP No. 1, the Appellant prayed for an order for setting aside/quashing the impugned judgement dt. 26.6.09 in C.C. Case No. 18 of 1008 and also prayed for order directing the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 to execute the agreement for sale dt. 25.3.07 in respect of the suit flat by making a complete Deed of Conveyance in accordance with law upon payment of the agreed amount on the agreement within the time-bound period. The Appellant further prayed for an order directing the OP No. 2 and the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take appropriate steps in regularizing the sale proceeds in respect of the flat in question within the time-period and also for an order granting compensation of Rs. 5.00 lacs with any other order as deemed fit and proper.
The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 namely Ms. Bratati Chakravarty and Purbalaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. entered appearance, but did not file any written version, when the matter was heard from all sides.
In the written argument filed by the Appellant the fact of the case was reiterated when it was argued that the Ld. Forum below failed to appreciate that the agreement of sale dt. 25.3.07 was under the provisions of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act and rules thereunder since the transferor therein was the OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1, who was a member of the Co-operative Society while Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 was Purbalaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. under which the said property is located. Stating that any dispute arising out of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act was required to be resolved through the procedure laid down under the said act, there was no question of application of Stamp Act, Registration Act, Contract Act and Transfer of Properties Act as these have no direct application. Stating further that the report and objection of DRCS was not given due credence in adjudication of the matter the Appellant pointed out that vide Memo No. 11493(27)/IV-1288/99 dt. 21.11.2006 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of West Bengal, the subordinate DRCSs were ordered that the transfer of membership would be done by the respective Co-operative Societies themselves as per Section 85(9) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and on this basis while the proposal for transfer of membership could have been effected and completed, which actually was not done affecting the Appellants interest very adversely and thus the Respondent No. 2 had defaulted in providing the services which were binding upon them. Arguing that when any clause of the agreement is contrary to the extant rules and procedure due to ignorance of parties concerned, then the extant rules and statutes should prevail and not the provisions of the agreement which might be in contrary to the extant rules. Accordingly, on such basis the Appellant became a consumer of OP No. 2 on 2.5.07 when his application for membership was accepted in the meeting of the Co-operative Society and the Society inspite of having more than 1 months time squarely failed to effect the transfer of the membership and in violation of appropriate DRCSs instruction defaulted in providing their statutory service causing monumental hardship and harassment to the Appellant. Referring to Clause 5(i)(b) of the agreement it was stated that the same merely said and meant that the balance amount of Rs. 8.00 lacs was to be paid within 90 days from the date of demortgaging provided necessary approval was obtained from DRCS as well as Purbalaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. But the two conditions of payment were never fulfilled by Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 in the way that documentary evidence of demortgaging was not furnished to the Appellant within 90 days and necessary approval from DRCS was not obtained by the Ops within that period, i.e. 90 days, and that was yet to be obtained. Therefore, the Appellant could not be said to have defaulted regarding payment when his application for loan was sanctioned on 20.6.07 and the Appellant was ready with the money from then onwards. In this way, the Ld. Forum below legalizing the cancellation allowed the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 quite unfairly to take advantage of her own wrongs and carry on with her unfair trade practice. Stating that there was no clause in the agreement regarding what was to be done in case the approval of DRCS was not obtained within 90 days and moreover, when the Appellant had not defaulted on any of the conditions of the agreement the Appellant questioned the authority of the transferor as to her liberty to cancel the agreement arbitrarily without any payment of damage, interest etc. Arguing that as per Section 142(1) of the Co-operative Rules 1987 the permission of DRCS was required it was pointed out that there was no provision of cancellation of agreement once the proposal of transfer was sent to DRCS after resolution having been made at the Board of Directors meeting of the Co-operative Society and there was no stipulation whatsoever for any time-period within which the approval was required to be given by DRCS and on failing thereof whether the parties involved would opt out of the deal. Referring to Section 85(9) read with Section 2(32) of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and Rule 142(3) of West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rule 1987 it was pointed out that once Respondent No.1s resignation was accepted by the Board of Directors of the Cooperative Society for complying with the reasons for cancellation in Section 142(3) of West Bengal Co-operative Societies rules there is no provision for cancellation of resignation. Thus, allowing her cancellation (Respondent No. 1s) was not only subscribing to her unethical and unfair trade practice but the same amounted to defeat of the very purpose of the concept and spirit of the Housing Cooperative Society.
Referring to Clause 20 of the agreement of sale dt. 25.3.07 it was pointed out that responsibility for obtaining the permission was on Respondent No. 1 and quite rightly so as the Appellant had no identity in the office of the DRCS. This position was substantiated by Clause 5(i)(a) of the said agreement and thus the responsibility for obtaining the given permission was beyond doubt on Respondent No. 1, which he had squarely failed. Accordingly, the Appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgement and order and for passing of directions and orders as made out in the Appeal.
The Respondent No. 1 namely Ms. Bratati Chakravarty, argued inter alia that the dispute between the parties, in terms of the given agreement, was purely civil in nature and remedy, if any, remained before the competent Civil Court and not in any forum under provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Contending that in terms of the said agreement the Respondent No. 1 only undertook to sign the papers and documents for the purpose of getting permission from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which she complied with fully and without delay and submitted those papers to the Respondent No. 2 and furthermore, she visited the office of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies on good gesture on several occasions. However, inspite of her best efforts the said approval for transfer of the flat in favour of the complainant was not had, for which she was in no way responsible.
According to the Respondent No. 1, the said agreement provided that the complainant/Appellant would take all necessary steps and also all possible measures for obtaining permission from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. But the reality was that the Appellant/Complainant hardly did anything and never cooperated with the Respondent No. 1 towards obtaining the said no-objection and thus inspite of Respondent No. 1s best efforts the Registrar of Cooperative Societies did not give approval for transfer of the flat in favour of the Appellant/Complainant. Ultimately, the said approval having not been forthcoming and the Respondent No. 1 having waited for a very long and protracted period ultimately was compelled to cancel the said agreement and then refund the previously paid amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs to the Appellant by a cheque drawn on Allahabad Bank, which cheque of course was not encashed and thereafter the Appellant moved the Forum on false and frivolous ground with allegations that were wholly untrue. Stating that under Co-operative Societies Act and Rules the Respondent No. 1 had no authority whatsoever to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the Appellant without having prior permission and even though the mortgage of the flat was released way back on 4.4.07, the agreement had to be cancelled ultimately on 31.12.07 wholly due to inordinate delay and non-cooperation on the side of the Appellant/Complainant. Reiterating that the Forum under Consumer Protection Act had no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the complaint it was argued that the Appellant/Complainant had no consumer relationship with the Respondent No. 1 and thus the complaint was bad in law and not maintainable. Pointing out further that the case of the complainant was to purchase a flat through outright sale through an agreement for the purpose of sale of the same by the owner and occupier of a cooperative flat there was no whisper of any housing construction or providing any service to the complainant and in the agreement it was specifically mentioned that for making out a good marketable title to the said apartment absolutely free from all encumbrances with a necessary permission to transfer the said flat being obtained, any complaint pertaining to cancellation of the agreement for sale could be remedied only through a move before the competent Civil Court for enforcement of the specific performance of the contract. It was argued that the contract for agreement for sale had made it amply clear that it was simply a case of after-sale of a flat where the Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 was not a service provider, which position was affirmed in this State Commission Case No. FA/444/2008 between Smt. Chhanda Choudhury Vs. Sri Kailashpati Chakraborty.
Referring to the complaint it was argued that no relief having been sought from OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 namely Purbalaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and no allegation having been made against it, there could not be any allegation of deficiency of service either. Stating that as per provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, simply granting permission by Cooperative Society does not entitle one to become a member of the said society and until the recommendation of the Cooperative Society is approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the claim of the Appellant that in this case he became a consumer before the OP no. 2 was also not acceptable. Contending that there was no evidence on record to show that Respondent No. 1 refused to cooperate with the Appellant or refused to file any paper required under law, it was submitted that the Respondent No. 1 had no ingredient of deficiency of service and a Revisional Application as was moved by the Appellant/Complainant seeking to amend the complaint was dismissed with observance that as per Cooperative Societies Act and Rules, in all cases of transfer permission of Registrar of Cooperative Societies is necessary in addition to written consent of the Housing Cooperative Society. In such connection, attention was drawn to an authoritative text titled Cooperative Law in West Bengal by Sunil Kr. Mitra (3rd Edition), Pages-215-216 and also Rule 135(3)(a) as also Section 85(9) of Cooperative Law in West Bengal in Pages 205 to 208. Further contending that a membership of a Cooperative Society does not cease unless and until the decision of the Cooperative Society stood approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the share certificate is accordingly transferred, it was pointed out that the same having not occurred through permission of the appropriate officials of Registrar of Cooperative Societies there was no transfer of share certificate and accordingly, there was no cessation of membership of Respondent No. 1 and thus the Complainant/Appellant never became a consumer as claimed by him. Accordingly, the prayer was made for dismissal of the Appeal with compensatory cost.
The Respondent No. 2 namely Purbalaya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., in its written argument contended that Ld. Forums judgement and order was well reasoned, unbiased, lawful and valid and there was no reason whatsoever to set aside, vary or interfere with the same. Stating that the agreement for sale was executed by and between the Appellant/Complainant and Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1, it was pointed out that Purbalaya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. namely the Respondent No. 2, was not a party to the agreement. Stating that the sale deed was required to be executed and registered by the vendor alone and not by the society as was wrongly stated in Prayer (a) of the complaint, it was contended that it necessarily followed that no order or direction could be passed against the society asking the society to execute and register the sale deed. Arguing that the complaint in essence related to specific performance of contract against the Respondent No. 1 unambiguously incorporated so in Condition No. 19 in Pages 8 & 9 of the agreement for sale for alleged non-performance against the Respondent No. 1, it was stated that the society had no role to play in that. It was also stated that the complainant/Appellant never hired the societys service for any consideration and thereby he never became a consumer under the society. Stating that the subject flat was located within Purbalaya Housing Cooperative Society complex where Respondent No. 1 being the owner of the flat was a member of the society it was contended that prior permission of the society as well as approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Govt. of West Bengal, was required to effect the sale and transfer of the flat and in the instant case while the society forwarded the transfer application with due resolution of Board of Directors regarding acceptance of the letter of Smt. Bratati Chakravarty and provisional membership of the Appellant for approval, there was no order or approval ever received from DRCS. Referring to this Commissions order dt. 27.4.09 in R.C. No. 09/10 at Para-5 where it was inter alia observed that We also hold that the OP No. 2 (Purbalaya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.) did not fail to discharge its duty by referring the transfer matter to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, it was submitted that no case has been made out against the society and so the Appeal may be dismissed with cost against the society.
DISCUSSION A. The primary question relevant in this matter was whether the allegation of deficiency of service as made out in the complaint would be adjudicated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or Cooperative Societies Act 1953, as amended.
From a careful dissection of records and evidence as are available with us, we do not find that the Appellant/Complainant was at any time a member of the Respondent No. 2 namely Purbalaya Housing Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. having proper membership of the society possessing shares thereof. By virtue of complainant/Appellants execution of an agreement of sale for a given tenement of Respondent No. 1 located within the same society and on the application of Respondent No. 1 towards her conditional proposition for sale of the said tenement subject to application/satisfaction of conditions and rules thereto like express permission of appropriate officials of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the Respondent No. 2 namely Purbalaya Cooperative Housing Society, sent a communication seeking requisite approval to the appropriate authority, which, however, was never received. At this point we are not on as to precisely why or as to whose fault the said permission was not received. But the fact remains that the requisite permission fundamental to the proposition for sale of the given tenement was not there.
Thus, the Appellant/Complainant was never a member of the given Cooperative Society, nor had he paid any consideration to the said society for any service and, therefore, the Appellant was not a consumer before the society and thus he cannot knock the doors of the Consumer Forum on any allegation of deficiency of service on part of the Respondent no. 2/OP No. 2.
B. As for his allegations of deficiency of service on part of Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1, namely Ms. Bratati Chakravarty, the entire relationship was based on an agreement of sale where the Appellant/Complainant paid Rs. 2.50 lacs to Respondent No. 1/OP No. 1 towards securing her title from mortgage made out to a lending bank having advanced loan to the Respondent No.
1. But the requisite permission from the appropriate officials of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies having not been forthcoming within a period deemed reasonable to the Respondent No. 1, the said agreement of sale was terminated by OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1.suo motu with a refund of Rs. 2.50 lacs accepted in advance against the total consideration money. On a careful reading of the contract of sale as was executed between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 with particular stress on Clasue-9 thereof we are unequivocal to hold that the relationship delineated by the said contract was certainly not between the service provider and a consumer but was a specific agreement for sale of property, which by no fitment of imagination or under any other provisions can be treated to be anything other than transfer of property adjudicable under Transfer of Properties Act and/or Specific Performance Act. In this regard, the finding of the Ld. Forum below with substantial reasoning and cogent grounds is wholly acceptable to us and we hold the identical view.
C. As for Appellants contention on the point of obtaining the no-objection or on the delay/non-availability thereof, we have no say, the matter being not deemed to be adjudicable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended. Also whether the Respondent No. 2 acted rightly in approaching the appropriate officials of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies towards obtaining the requisite permission is a non-issue, firstly because the Appellant had no consumer relationship with the Respondent No. 2/OP No. 2 and secondly, because the complaint is deemed to be not maintainable at all under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended.
D. In above view, agreeing with the findings of the Ld. Forum below we are inclined to affirm the judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below and accordingly, hold that the Appeal being bad in law is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed.
O R D E R The Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement and order is hereby affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER