Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

CC/22/133

Vincent D'souza - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hony. Secretary/Chairman - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Phone No. 022-2417 1360
Website- www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/22/133
( Date of Filing : 02 Jun 2022 )
 
1. Vincent D'souza
Pearl Colony, A/5, Dadar East, Mumbai-400014
Maharashtra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Hony. Secretary/Chairman
Pearl C.H.S. Ltd., Dadar (east), Mumbai-400014
Maharashtra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 08 Jul 2022
Final Order / Judgement

Order below section 36(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 in CC/22/133

 Per M.P.Kasar, Member

Heard Complainant in person. Perused Complaint filed by the complainant and document annexed along with complaint at the stage of admission of complaint below section 36(2) of CPAct.

It has been observed from the perusal of complaint and documents annexed along with that, complainant is seeking to challenge /contest the draft minutes on  AGM dated 23/4/22  which received on 4.5.22 at 7.00 pm provided for members comments and observations within 15 days. Complainant is the member A/5.It is allegation of complainant that, the draft minutes is without mention on agenda and without attending to the points made /stated in complainants letter before M.C & also complainant seeks to contest points of agenda of motion  carried out  i.e. regarding car parking and in regard name of complainant and also in regard  threat to expel complainant and sought the motion without Agenda on AGM be deleted immediately

We framed issue as follows

  1. Whether present complaint can be admitting against opposite party? No
  2.  What an order? complaint rejected against opposite parties

As to issue No.1 :-The allegations made by the complainant in present complaint against opposite parties are   pertaining to AGM and Agenda of opposite party which does not come within the ambit of service the subject matter raised by complainant in complaint against opposite party comes within the ambit of Co operative societies Act. Being member of opposite party society complainant can approached before appropriate authorities established below MCS Act 1960 in regard subject matter against opposite party. We are of the opinion that present complaint cannot be admitted against opposite parties below section 36(2) of CPAct 2019 at the admission stage for the want of jurisdiction though complainant is member of opposite party and complaint filed well in limitation and proper in territorial jurisdiction of this commission

Considering findings derived from the above issues we pass order in view of issue No.2 as follows:

                                            ORDER

  1. CC No.22/133 is hereby rejected against opposite parties below section 36(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019
  2. No order as to cost.
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.