V.N. Mishra, Member:
1. The present appeal filed by Police Employees Co-operative House Construction Society, Anishabad (hence onward referred as Society) is directed against the order dated 8.1.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Patna in Complaint Case No. 330/94.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant (a police officer) had deposited with the Society a sum of Rs. 250/- for five shares for allotment of land vide share certificate dated 13.10.1976. His membership number was 550 for which he had paid Rs. 25/- as membership fee. The Society had informed him on 25.4.1977 that he should remain prepared to deposit Rs. 4,000/- and for that he would be intimated the date when the above amount was to be deposited. He wrote letters dated 30.5.1985, 4.4.1986, 14.4.1988, 8.8.1991 and 8.8.1992 in this connection to the Society to know the date when the amount was to be deposited. He could not get any information inspite of the above letters. He later on in January, 1993 came to know that all the plots had been allotted to other members. The members of the Society had been allotted 4½ Kathas of land for Rs. 15,500/-. The Society had indulged in nepotism in allotment of plots. Plots had also been allotted to such persons who were not police personnel thus violating the bye-laws of the Housing Construction Society.
3. He therefore urged that the irregularities committed in the allotment of plots may be enquired into and justice may be done or a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- may be ordered to be paid to him by the opposite parties. On 7.4.1994 a petition was filed on behalf of the complainant in para 3 of which it was stated that the petition be treated as main complaint petition. In that petition the prayer was for directing the opposite parties to allot a plot of 4½Kathas to the complainant for the price given by other members and in the alternative award a compensation of rupees four lacs.
4. The opposite parties in their joint written statement raised preliminary objection that the complaint case is time barred. They further alleged that the allotment of plots of the Society was done in 1981-82 whereas the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came into force on 24.12.1986 and hence the complaint case is not maintainable under the Act. They further pleaded that Consumer Forum is not the appropriate venue for deciding such complaint case which may require examination of large number of documents and good number of witnesses.
5. The opposite parties who are Secretary and President of the Society, have admitted that the complainant had been allotted fiveshares of Rs. 50/- each in October, 1976. But the complainant could not be entitled for allotment of plot only on the basis of five shares unless he deposited the price of the plot amounting to Rs. 17,500/- which he never deposited inspite of notices published in the newspaper and personal reminder sent to him under registered post. They have also admitted to have asked the members of the Society including the complainant to keep themselves in readiness to deposit Rs. 4,000/- as earnest money towards the cost of the plot. They claimed to have sent their letter No. 8 dated 18.5.1978 to the complainant through registered post, registration number being 2872 dated 22.5.1978 of G.P.O., Patna. Notice for depositing the cost of land vide memo No. 15 dated 14.6.1978 was circulated to the different wings of the Police Department. Notices were also published in local dailies, i.e., in Aryavarton 20.6.1978, in Searchlight on 17.7.1978 and again in Aryavar on 18.7.1978 calling upon the members to deposit the cost of the land latest by 14.8.1978 but the complainant inspite of all this never bothered to respond though he all along remained posted in this State only. He never contacted the office of the Society. They further stated that many of the members of the Society were reluctant to deposit the cost of the land since the area then was undeveloped, secluded and water logged paddy fields. The complainant also was not interested in getting the allotment of any plot when cost of the land had been demanded from him. The complainant has now come up to lay his claim over the land only because the cost of land in that area after development escalated by 50 to 60 times. But the available land has already been allotted to its members who deposited the cost of land. No plot of land is now available with the Society to be allotted to the complainant. They further reiterated that all the members who were allotted plots by the Society were all associated with the work of Police Department. They averred that neither the complainant is entitled for allotment of a plot nor there is any plot now available with the Society to be allotted to him. The complainant cannot be entitled to claim any compensation and the complaint was fit to be dismissed.
6. The District Forum had observed that the opposite parties had committed serious irregularities in the allotment of plots and violated Rule 4 of the bye-laws of the Society by alloting plots to officers not belonging to the Police Department. The District Forum in absence of registration receipt and A/D did not rely on the statement of the opposite parties on affidavit that registered notice had been sent to the complainant. The District Forum passed the impugned order directing the appellants-opposite parties to allot a plot of 4½ Kathas of land to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 17,500/- within a month of receipt of the order failing which they shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakhs as compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the order, the opposite parties filed the present appeal reiterating their stand in the written statement and also pointing out factual errors in the impugned order.
7. The learned Lawyers on behalf of both the parties were finally heard.
8. On perusal of the record it is found that it is admitted that the complainant had paid Rs. 25 /- to the opposite party as membership fee and had purchased five shares of Rs. 50/- each. It is also admitted that the opposite parties had written letter No. 8 dated 25.4.1977 to the complainant. It is clearly indicated in that letter that a member of the Society has to deposit the amount equivalent to the cost of the land according to the bye-laws of the Society. As the rate of compensation was to be fixed by Government, definite knowledge of the cost of land was not available with the opposite parties. They however had asked the complainant to be in readiness to deposit an amount which was likely to exceed Rs. 4,000/-. It was also clearly indicated that intimation to deposit the amount would be given in advance. The stand of the complainant is that he was never given intimation by the opposite parties to deposit the cost of the land inspite of the fact that he had sent a series of letters in this regard to the opposite parties. The first letter claimed to have been sent by the complainant incidentally is of 30.3.1985 when final allotment is said to have been done in 1981-2 itself. The complainant has not claimed if any of the letters that he sent to the opposite parties was sent through registered post. The opposite parties in para 13 of their written statement have stated that there is nothing in the record of the Society to show that the complainant ever contacted the Society for depositing the cost of land. On looking into these letters it is found that he full address of the opposite parties had also not been indicated. All the letters are addressed toââThe Secretary,Police Employees Co-operative House Construction Society Limited, PatnaâThe location of the office of the Society or the Secretary was not indicated in the address of the opposite parties although the complainant in the complaint petition had indicated the above address of the opposite party adding, Boring Road, Mokameh House, Patna. In an earlier letter sent in June, 1982, which is an annexure to his petition filed on 7.4.1994, the complainant had written the full address of Society and hence it cannot be said that he was not aware of the full address of the Society. Even if we assume that all these letters might have been sent by the complainant, they might not have reached the opposite parties in absence of full address. The opposite parties on the other hand have claimed to have sent individual letter to the complainant vide their No. 8 dated 18.5.1978 through registered post with registration receipt number 2872 dated 22.5.1978 (Annexure-I to the memo of appeal) which was registered in G.P.O., Patna. Registration slip had however not been furnished by the opposite parties. The opposite parties should have been directed to furnish the registration slip in case if the District Forum disbelieved the statement of the opposite parties on oath. The District Forum could very well get the veracity of the statement of the opposite parties checked by the G.P.O. authorities. That was not done. The opposite parties had got the notice published in three important dailies of the State on three dates that the members of the Society were required to deposit the cost of land latest by 14.8.1978. Photo copy of Memo No. 15 dated 14.6.1978 is also on record which was circulated to different wings of the Police Department. Adequate steps thus appear to have been taken by the opposite parties to intimate the complainant to deposit the cost of the land. As it appears from the annexures to complaint petition and written statement Sri S.K. Sinha, Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna was the then Secretary of the Society. In case if the complainant was not getting any response to the series of letters claimed to have been sent by him, he could have verified it from his colleague personally if he was really serious for getting allotment of plot. In such circumstances the argument of the opposite parties appears convincing that quite a few of the members of Society were reluctant to deposit money for the land as it was undeveloped, secluded and was a water logged paddy field at that point of time. The conduct of the complainant shows that he could have also been one amongst such unwilling members.
9. Further, the complainant by becoming a member and by purchasing five shares of the Society had all right become entitled for allotment of plot. But according to the bye-laws of the Society, he could get allotment of plot only if he had deposited the cost of land or earnest money which he did not do to acquire the status of a consumer. The complainant simply by becoming a member and by purchasing five snares of the Society cannot be said to have hired the services of the Society. Therefore, he will not be a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. And that being so, the complaint case was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
10. As regards allotment of plots to non-police personnel, the complainant ought to have moved the Registrar, Co-operative Societies who would have been the Competent Authority to enquire into such irregularities. Consumer FORA do not have any mandate in such matters. It is felt that the District Forum has grossly erred in adjudicating the issue of irregularity in allotment of plots when it was outside the scope of Consumer FORA in view of the provisions of âBihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Actâ, a special Act.
11. Further the complainant had purchased shares of the Society on 13.10.1976. The allotment of plots of the Society had finally been made in 1981-82. Filing of complaint case in 1994 is grossly time barred.
12. In view of the above discussions this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the complaint case is dismissed.
13. There is no order as to cost.
Appeal allowed.