Judgment
J.D. Kapoor, President:
1. Appellant is a Cooperative Group Housing Society. Respondent is its member. He was allotted a flat No. 156, Ankur Apartments by the appellant society. Though the flat was allotted in the year 1991 but major defects including flooring, plastering, finishing wood work, etc. were brought to the notice of the society on 23.6.1992. Since the defects were not removed by the appellant-society, the respondent sought redressal from the Consumer Forum.
2. Vide impugned order dated 16.5.2001 the District Forum directed the appellant society to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000 as damages/compensation and Rs. 1,000 litigation cost and also pay Rs. 24,577 as per estimate furnished by the respondent to the society to repair the sunken floor. Feeling aggrieved of the above order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. First and foremost question raised by the appellant is that the respondent is not a consumer vis-a-vis the society and, therefore, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We do not find any merit in this contention as the nature of services to be provided by the appellant society comes within the ambit of the services enumerated in Section 2(1)(f) [sic 2(1)o]of the Consumer Protection Act which includes the services of the one in question. Only those disputes are referable under the Cooperative Housing Societies Act which relate to the disputes as to the validity of the membership, cancellation of membership and not those disputes which involve defects in the flats allotted by the society. Moreover, the âdefect as per Section 2(1)(d) [sic 2(1)(f)] means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (under any contract, express or implied as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
4. Apart from this, Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act also provides an additional remedy in respect of defective goods or deficiency in service on the part of the service providers. As per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the remedy shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, which means that remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
5. On merits the appellant has taken the plea that since the construction of the flat was entrusted to the Central Public Works Department of Government of India through a private contractor and the members were required to take possession of the flat before 9.7.1992 and at the time of taking possession they were required to submit a list of defects so that the same can be passed on to the CPWD for rectification and mere circumstance of taking over the possession in the year 1991 and bringing the defects in the flats to the notice of the society in June 1992 shows that the possession was taken after the removal of the defects.
6. We also do not find any merit in this contention because if the defects had been removed the appellant society would have come with the details of the works carried out by the CPWD. Rather it was on the suggestion of the appellant society that the estimate of the cost of the repairs of the defects was submitted by the members and it was in response to this suggestion that respondent submitted the estimate amounting to Rs. 24,577.
7. In spite of having received this estimate the appellant society did not remove the defects. This inaction on the part of the appellant amounts to deficiency in service as it is the duty of the society who undertakes to construct the flat to see that the flats are free from defects and if there are any defects the society is obliged to repair the same within a stipulated period to the satisfaction of the members of the society. Such like disputes are termed as a consumer dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(e).
8. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case we partly allow the appeal by directing the appellant society to get the defects pointed out by the respondent in the flat by inspecting the flat by the concerned Executive Engineer of the CPWD within two weeks and remove the same within one month thereafter to the satisfaction of the respondent with the report about the removal of the defects by the Executive Engineer of CPWD. So far as compensation/damages of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation are concerned, we do not feel inclined to interfere as the respondent has suffered on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant society.
9. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
10. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, filed âby the appellant be returned after completion of due formalities.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Appeal partly allowed.