State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Secretary, Aditya Co-Op Housing ... vs Ashok Kumar Gupta on 8 August, 2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/11/172
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 11/01/2011 in Case No. 251/2009 of District Thane)
1. THE SECRETARY, ADITYA CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
GUNSAGAR
NAGAR STATION ROAD KALWA (WEST )
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
B-303
USHA NAGAR VILLAGE ROAD BHANDUP WEST MUMBAI
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
PRESENT:
H G MISAR , Advocate for the Appellant
ORDER
Per Mr. S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member :
This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 11.1.2011 passed in consumer complaint No. 251/2009, Ashok Kumar Gupta V/s Secretary, Aditya Co.op. Hsg. Socy. Ltd. passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane District (the Forum in short).
The Forum allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant/original opponent to refund the excess non-occupancy charges recovered from the respondent/original complainant and also further awarded compensation. Feeling aggrieved thereby, original opponent preferred this appeal.
Admit and heard with the consent of both the parties.
In the instant case, the grievances of the respondent regarding levying and charging non-occupancy charges in excess of 10% of the maintenance charges excluding the taxes, is perhaps correct and justified. But the consumer complainant as filed against the Secretary of the society suffers from vital defect which goes to root of the matter. At the first instance, though the society is service provider, society which is a separate and distinct jurisdic person under section (2)(i)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not made a party. At the second instance, each one of the payment of non-occupancy charges made, gives separate cause of action. The aspect of clubbing such distinct causes of action is not considered properly and dealt with accordingly. At the third instance, though the claim pertains to different flats which stand in the names of different persons i.e. the Complainant and his brother, said aspect is also overlooked by the Forum, particularly considering the provision under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Both the parties requested that they be given opportunity to present their respective case properly and against appropriate party and for this purpose, to serve ends of justice, the matter be remitted back to the Consumer Forum. We find merit in their submission. To do the substantial justice, we hold accordingly and pass the order :
Appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Consumer complaint is remitted back to the Forum in the light of the observations made earlier in the body of the order. Both the parties shall appear before the Consumer Forum on 12.9.2011. On their appearance, Forum shall give opportunity to the Complainant to amend this complaint and Opponent to file its written version/additional written version and thereafter, following the procedure under section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, shall settle the dispute according to the law. In the meantime, both the parties shall also seek opportunity to settle the dispute out of the Commission.
Parties to bear their own costs. Amount deposited by the appellant under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be refunded to him as per the rules.
Pronounced dated 8th August 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER aab