DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  24^th  day of March, 2023

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                                                          Date of Filing: 28/10/2022    

                         CC/206/2022

Sivaraj K

S/o. V.K.Muralidharan,

14/750, Sivaprasadam,

Major Enclave,

Karingarapulli,

Palakkad  - 678 551                                       -                       Complainant

(By Adv. M/s Redson Skaria & Rohit Baben)

                                                                                    Vs

1. Balachandran,

President,

Major Enclave Residents’  Association,

Karingarapulli,

Palakkad  - 678 551         

2. Ramdas Menon,

Secretary,

Major Enclave Residents’  Association,

Karingarapulli,

Palakkad  - 678 551         

3. V.P.S.Menon, 

Joint Secretary,

Major Enclave Residents’  Association,

Karingarapulli,

Palakkad  - 678 551                                 -                       Opposite parties

                   (O.P.s 1 & 2 by Adv. E. Krishnadas)

O R D E R   O N   T H E   Q U E S T I O N   O F   M A I N T A I N A B I L I T Y

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complaint grievance, abridged, is that the complainant’s mother is the owner of an apartment. The Opposite parties are the office bearers of the Apartment Owners’ Association to which the complainant’s mother’s apartment belong. The complainant is aggrieved by the constant demand made by opposite parties for amounts allegedly for various purposes. Complainant found that the amounts already paid were not being utilized or accounted properly. The opposite parties have also published the name of the complainant as being a defaulter placing the complainant in an embarrassing situation. This complaint seeks return of the amounts paid by the complainant and for compensation and incidental expenses.
2. On 18/01/2023, this Commission phrased the following preliminary Issue for considering the question of maintainability:

 “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, whether there exist a consumer – service provider relationship between the complainant and the O.P.s”?

3. Heard the parties.
4. The opposite parties are made opposite parties in their personal capacity. They are the President, Secretary and Joint Secretary respectively of one ‘Major Enclave Residents’ Association’. Whether the impleading be in personal capacity or official capacity, the service rendered by the opposite parties are actually discharge of duties ex-officio. Purpose of the said discharge is the welfare, management and administration of the members of the Association. Hence they are not providing any services as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act.

They charge monthly or annual subscription. They may also charge the pro-rata share of expenses expended for the welfare of the Association. But these payment cannot be equated to be consideration as Contemplation under the Act.

Further, the Complainant is a member of the Association and not a consumer.

5. Thus we hold that there is no consumer - service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties. 
6. This complaint is,  therefore, not maintainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint.          Pronounced in open court on this the 24^th day of  March, 2023.      

                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member                                                               

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.