Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/679

SMT.RANJANA JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAVITA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - Opp.Party(s)

SH. VIJAY TIWARI

06 Oct 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 11.03.2013 passed in C.C.NO.624/2008 by District Commission,

Indore)

 

SMT. RANJANA JAIN,

W/O DR. SURENDRA JAIN,

R/O FLAT NO. G-1, 103, NYAY NAGAR,

SUKHALIYA, INDORE (M.P.)                                                                      … APPELLANT.

 

                        Versus

 

1. PRESIDENT, KAVITA CO-OPERATIVE

    HOUSING SOCIETY, 90, CHANDRALOK

    COLONY, INDORE (M.P.)

 

2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

    INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

    7, RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE (M.P.)                                            …. RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                   :             PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY           :          MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAV        :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Vijay Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-society.

           Shri Rajeev Acharya appears on behalf of Ms. Sapna Aggarwal,

           Learned counsel for the respondent no.2-IDA

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 06.10.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

                   This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 11.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short ‘District Commission) in

 

-2-

C.C.No.624/2008 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by her. 

2.                In brief, facts of the case are that the complainant became member of the opposite party no.1-Kavita Co-operative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘society’). It is submitted that between the society and the opposite party no.2-Indore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘IDA’), an agreement was executed and according to which IDA had to develop the colony ‘Vaishnodevi Nagar, Scheme No.114 Part-II’ launched by the society and the plots will be made available to the members of the society as per seniority list. It is alleged that on different dates from 17.02.1992 to 08.10.2004 she had deposited Rs.1,92,210/- with the society  but the society did not execute sale-deed of plot in her favour. It is alleged that the society make changes in the seniority list including the new members and send the list to the IDA for allotment of plot. The complainant’s name is not there in the said list.  It is further alleged that on 24.10.2007, the society asked her to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- but before depositing the said amount she asked the society to adjust the amount already deposited by her but they refused to do so. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite partied filed a complainant before the District Commission seeking relief.

 

 

-3-

3.                The opposite party no.1-society resisted the complaint stating that on 16.12.2003 society received a notice from the opposite party no.2-IDA for depositing Rs.1,84,36,367/- within a period of 15 days. The IDA had allotted only 174 plots whereas 300 members are in waiting list to get the plots, therefore a meeting was called and it was decided that seniority list will be prepared according to deposits made by the members of the society. The members were informed accordingly. Despite that the complainant did not deposit the amount asked for, therefore, her name was included in the list. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the society. It is also submitted that as per M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The opposite party no.2-IDA resisted the complaint stating that as per Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the IDA. As per agreement, the IDA has to allot the plot on the basis of list received from the society and on deposition of development charges. Since the opposite party no.1-society did not recommend the name of the

 

 

-4-

complainant, therefore, she was not allotted plot. The complaint against it is not maintainable.

5.                The District Commission partly allowing the complaint directed the opposite party no.1-society to refund the amount deposited by the complainant to her i.e. Rs.1,07,720/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits. Compensation of Rs.3,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded. 

6.                Heard. Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission relying on the pleadings of the opposite party no.1-society wrongly hold that the complainant is not entitled to get the plot. He further argued that the society failed to produce any document demanding the amount from the complainant and the complainant failed to deposit the same. The society illegally demanded Rs.2,00,000/- without disclosing any valid ground. The District Commission also did not consider this aspect that despite requesting, the society did not give the details of the amount already deposited by her. He therefore argued that the impugned order is perverse and is liable to be set-aside and the opposite parties be directed to give 1500 sq.ft. plot to her.  

 

 

-5-

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-society argued that since the complainant failed to deposit the amount as demanded and therefore her name was not included in the list which was forwarded to the IDA. The District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order directing to refund the amount with interest. Since the complainant herself was defaulter, therefore she is not entitled to get any plot. He argued that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-IDA argued that on the basis of list received from the society, the members who had deposited the development charges were allotted plots. Since the complainant’s name was not in the list forwarded by the society, therefore, the plot was not allotted to her. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the IDA.

10.              Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find that the society has specifically pleaded that on demand being raised by the IDA, it had informed the members through newspaper publication and by UPC to deposit the amount. The complainant herself admitted in paragraph 12 of her complaint that the society vide letter dated 24.10.2007 (D-14) demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to be deposited as a demand draft in the name of IDA, but instead of depositing the said

 

-6-

amount, she asked about the details and adjustment of the amount deposited earlier.

11.              The society has stated that the IDA has allotted only 174 plots to the society and the number of members were 300, therefore, it was decided in general meeting of the society that the seniority list will be prepared on the basis of the members who have deposited the entire demanded amount.  Accordingly, the list was prepared and forwarded to the IDA for allotment of plots. This fact was not controverted by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant did not deposit the amount as demanded and therefore her name was not included in the list prepared by the society and thereafter forwarded to the IDA. The IDA thereafter allotted the plots to the members on the basis of list received from the society and the members who had deposited the amount.

12.              In such circumstances, when the complainant herself not deposited the amount as demanded, the opposite parties i.e. society and the IDA cannot be said to be deficient in service. The relief which can only be granted to the complainant is refund of amount with interest, deposited by her. The District Commission has rightly directed the opposite party no.1-society to refund the amount of Rs.1,07,720/- deposited by her with interest

 

-7-

@ 18% p.a. along with compensation and costs. The complainant is not entitled to get any plot as she did not deposit the amount as demanded by

the society. Thus we find that the District Commission has committed no error in passing the impugned order and partly allowing the complaint. Accordingly it is upheld.

13.              In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

           (A. K. Tiwari)     (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

    Presiding Member            Member                      Member