Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal filed by the original complainant takes an exception to an order of dismissal of consumer complaint no.327/2007, dated 08/04/2011, Manoj Dattatray Randive V/s. Dev-Ashish Co-op. Hsg. Society and others; passed by Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Heard appellant in person and Ld.counsel Mr.A.A.Barve appearing for respondent nos.1 & 3 and respondent no.2 absent, ex-parte.
It is the grievance of the complainant -Mr.Manoj Dattatray Randive viz.appellant, that his late mother entered into an agreement with respondent no.2-M/s.Ashish Builders on 15/10/1990 to purchase a flat situated in building known as Dev-Ashish Co-op.Hsg.Society and paid the entire consideration. Possession of the flat was received by her as per the order passed by this Commission in Appeal no.A/96/528 on 30/05/1997. In the meantime, Housing Society of the flat purchasers from the said building viz. respondent no.1-Dev Ashish Co-op.Hsg.Society (herein after referred as ‘Society’) was registered on 14/02/1997. Appellant Manoj was the nominee and power of attorney holder of his mother. An application was made by him for his mother for the membership of the society and also he further made an enquiry about the corporation taxes and other charges. He also remained present in a General Body meeting of the Society on 31/08/1997. Society did not part any information with him as well as refused to accept the maintenance charges, corporation taxes, etc. from him. Society advised him to make an application for the membership with necessary documents. He accordingly supplied them necessary documents on 20/09/1997, paid charges of `1,342.50ps. by cheque but the said cheque was returned. On 11/11/1997, society declined to make mother of the appellant as its member but further demanded an amount of `17,286/- as arrears w.e.f. 01/04/1994. Dispute of the membership of the mother of the appellant was taken to various authorities including Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to the High Court as well as to the Apex Court. In the meanwhile, it is alleged by the appellant that respondent no.3-Mr.Vivek M.Dharia, who possesses flat no.5 situated above the flat of the mother of the appellant had renovated his flat and as a result of which, there was leakage in the flat of his mother. He also claimed that respondent no.2-M/s.Ashish Builders, Builder and Developer did not execute the conveyance in favour of the society and, therefore, he filed consumer complaint on 16/06/2007 inter-alia claiming the following reliefs:-
(A) To direct the respondents to repair complainants grossly damaged flat from inside & outside, free of cost.
(B) To direct OP no.3 to repair their own flat, which is leaking everywhere and damaging complainant’s flat.
(C ) To direct OP no.1 and OP no.2 to grant Share Certificates of deceased Smt.Vimal D.Randive to the complainant immediately.
(D) To direct the OP no.2 to pay complainant `35,000/-with compounding interest @ 15% p.a. w.e.f. 29/06/1992.
(E) To direct OP no.2 to take Completion Certificate and Occupation certificate from the Bombay Municipal Corporation immediately.
(F) To direct OP no.2 to convey the land, by ‘Deed of Conveyance’ in favour of respondent no.1 immediately.
(G) To direct each respondent to pay complainant `1,00,000/- being compensation towards harassment and mental tension given to the complainant.
(H) Cost of the complaint.
Any other reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court think fit and proper. If the said reliefs are not granted great hardship will cause to the all members of OP no.1 and complainant.”
Forum dismissed the consumer complaint which lead to this appeal, supra. Admittedly, the dispute as to the membership of the society is taken up to the appropriate authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and, as such, untill the mother of the complainant or complainant himself gets the membership of the society, there is no inter-se relationship between the appellant and society respectively as a as ‘consumer’ and the ‘service provider’. Therefore, the consumer complaint as against the society, particularly, referring to the complaint of repairs cannot be entertained. Similarly, as far as execution of the conveyance in favour of the society is concerned, it is the society who would be the aggrieved party in case such conveyance is not executed by respondent no.2-builder. Society had no complaint about it. Appellant or his mother cannot raise a grievance in their individual capacity for non execution of the conveyance in favour of the society by the builder.
As far as repairs due to alleged renovation by respondent no.3 –Mr.Vivek M.Dharia are concerned, it is for the society to take necessary steps but since admittedly, appellant or his mother were not given any membership to the society, bye-laws of the society could not be applied in the present case on the basis of which, perhaps, it could be alleged that the society has committed deficiency in service in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since appellant or his mother were not given any membership of society, grant of share certificate of the society in their favour does not arise.
As far as relief claimed in respect of Completion Certificate or Occupation Certificate is concerned, in view of the totality of the circumstances of the present case, we find dismissal of consumer complaint even for this relief cannot be faulted with.
For the reasons stated above, we find appeal is devoid of any substance and we hold accordingly.
However, before parting with the order, we would like to observe that mother of the appellant consequent to her agreement to purchase the flat with respondent no.2- builder and developer was put in possession at the intervention of this Commission. In this background, it is for the society to take a reasonable view, to act as an elder brother, even if appellant’s conduct is rather found objectionable by it (as submitted at bar by the Ld.counsel of the society) and to act reasonably to resolve the issue of membership of appellant or his mother so that functioning of the society as such would be smooth and will ensure cordial relationship with its members.
We only hope that parties concerned to take note of this sentiment expressed by this Commission. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 5th October, 2012.
