State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Liladhar Asija vs Ssi Co. Operative Flatted Estate Ltd. ... on 22 November, 2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/05/1700
(Arisen out of Order Dated 01/08/2005
in Case No. 216/2004 of District Nashik)
1. Mr. Liladhar Asija
R/o. 22, "Gaurav",
Opp. Rachana Vidhyalaya, Sharanpur Road,
Nashik - 422 002.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SSI Co. Operative Flatted Estate Ltd. [SICOFF]
Off. at Plot No. 69, MIDC
Area, Satpur, Trimbak Road,
Nashik - 422 007.
2. SICOM LIMITED
Having it's Office at Nirmal
1st floor, Nariman Point, Post Box No. 11571,
Mumbai 400 021.
3. Regional Manager, SICOM LIMITED
Off. at MIDC Area, Satpur, Trimbak Road, Nashik 422 007.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.
P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
PRESENT:
None present.
ORDER
Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Honble Member This appeal is directed against the order dated 01/08/2005 in consumer complaint No.216/2004 (Mr.Liladhar Asija V/s. SSI Co-operative Flatted Estate Ltd. & Ors.) passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik. By way of this order, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik dismissed the complaint of the appellant and also imposed fine of `500/-
under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to be deposited in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum within a month from the date of the impugned order of which `200/- were to be paid to opponent/respondent No.1 and `100/-
to opponent Nos.2&3 jointly and rest of the amount was to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order, the appellant/org. complainant has preferred this appeal before us.
2. This appeal is very old and was placed on the Board from sine-die list.
Notices were issued on 02/11/2011 to the parties in pursuant of the order dated 08/09/2011. However, on the next date of hearing i.e. 22/11/2011 none of the parties were present. Therefore, it was decided to dispose of this appeal on its merits.
3. Undisputed facts as per record are that the appellant/org. complainant is a member in the Industrial co-operative Housing Society.
Opponent No.1 is Co-operative Federation for development of MIDC area and opponent No.2/SICOM is the Financer and opponent No.3 is Regional Manager, SICOM for permitting establishment of the Industrial Society in the area. Appellant was allotted a plot No.61 in the Industrial Society which was developed by opponent Nos.1&2 by availing financial assistance and this being a leasehold property, the lease premium was paid by the appellant @ `430/- per sq.ft. The grievance of the appellant is that during the rainy season in 1998 the entire Gala-shop was flooded with rain water as there was no appropriate elevation made at the time of construction to avoid flooding by rain water. He had denied that he was put in possession of the said shop on leasehold basis. Owing to defective site selection of the construction of the shop/gala and with a view to avoid flooding and mental torture in future, he decided to transfer this shop. However, transfer application was rejected by opponent/respondent Nos.1to3. Rejection by opponent/respondent Nos.1to3 to transfer this shop is construed by appellant as deficiency in service and therefore, appellant/org. complainant has filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik.
4. Opponent/respondent No.1 contested the claim of the appellant/org. complainant on the ground that the complaint was not based on the facts and also did not come under the jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as the appellant/org. complainant is not covered by the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The plot of land bearing No.69 was on the basis of leasehold (on rental basis) and the construction of the shop/gala was collectively completed by availing financial assistance from opponent/respondent Nos.2&3. Appellant was under obligation to pay the construction cost of `86,400/-
and the interest thereon of `2,17,200/- totaling to `3,03,600/-. However, he was in arrears of this amount and therefore, respondents have preferred a petition before the Honble Bombay High Court and in pursuant to the order of the Honble High Court, recovery was to be made from the appellant/org. complainant.
However, lenient view was taken by opponents/respondents in recovery of arrears. Opponents/respondent Nos.2&3 also joined the issue with respondent No.1 saying that appellant/complainant was in huge arrears of construction costs and therefore, appellant was a defaulter in payment of arrears of construction costs of said shop. He cannot be called as consumer because the shop/gala was given on lease basis and not on the ownership ship.
5. On perusal of the record, we observe that the appellant is in possession of leasehold property and refusal or denial of the transfer of the disputed shop/gala by opponents/respondent Nos.1to3 does not amount to deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the appellant is in his capacity as lease holder/tenant is not covered under the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We therefore find no fault in the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik.
We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 22nd November 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER dd