MANU/CF/0083/2021

Equivalent Citation: 2021 (2) C PR 654

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI
Revision Petition Nos. 104 of 2011, 105 of 2011, 106 of 2011 and 2914 of 2011
Decided On: 01.04.2021
Appellants: Gauri Grih Nirman Sahakari Maryadit
Vs.
Respondent: Pankaj Chouhan and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C. Viswanath, (Presiding Member)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: G. Umapathy, Rohit K. Singh, Advocates and Pavitra
Balakrishnan
For Respondents/Defendant: G.S. Chaturvedi, Soumyajit Pani and Ranjan Kumar,
Advocates
Case Category:
MATTERS RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION
ORDER
C. Viswanath, (Presiding Member)
1. Revision Petition Nos. 104 to 106 of 2011 have been filed against common the order
dated 05.10.2020 in First Appeal Nos. 730, 731 & 1017 of 2008 and Revision Petition
NO. 2914 of 2011 has been filed against the order dated 15.07.2011 passed in First
Appeal NO. 1075 of 2011 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bhopal (in short, "the State Commission") whereby First Appeal Nos. 730,
731 & 1017 of 2008 were dismissed on merit and First Appeal NO. 1075 of 2011 was
dismissed as barred by limitation.
2 . Case of the Complainants/Respondents is that the Petitioner was a Co-Operative
Housing Society and the Respondents/Complainants were its Members. Complainant
Pankaj Chouhan was allotted Plot NO. A-58 of 1500 sq.ft. for a sum of Rs. 22,500/-,
vide sale deed dated 06.05.1994. Neeraj Chouhan was allotted Plot NO. A-59 of 1500
sq.ft. for a sum of Rs. 22,500/-, vide sale deed dated 10.06.1994. Sunita Modi was
allotted Plot NO. A-60 of 1500 sq.ft., vide sale deed dated 31.12.1993. P.N. Ahirwar
was allotted Plot NO. A-11 of 35 x 60 sq.ft. for a sum of Rs. 31,500/-, vide sale deed
dated 26.05.1993. Original site plan was also annexed alongwith each of the sale
deeds. On 03.03.2003, the Petitioner/Opposite Party got the layout plan revised by the
Town & Country Planning Department, without intimation to the Complainants, due to
which plot numbers of the Complainants were changed from A-58, A-59, A-60 and A-11
to 58, 50, 60 & 11 respectively. In the revised layout plan, lay-out of the colony was
changed without intimation to the Complainants. The Complainants requested the
Petitioner Society for amendment in the sale deed and to protect the interest of the
Complainants, but the Society did not take any steps. Claiming deficiency in service on

20-06-2022 (Page 1 of 5) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

the part of the Petitioner/Opposite Party, Complainants filed individual Complaints
before the District Forum. Prayers made in the Complaints were almost similar. Revision
Petition NO. 104 of 2011 being the lead case, prayer made in Complaint NO. 366/2004
filed by Complainant Pankaj Chouhan is taken out. Same reads as follows:-
a) That, let the Ld. Forum pass an order directing the Respondent that he
should allot/give a plot which is equivalent to plot NO. A-58 allotted and sold
to him originally in all its aspects and also otherwise give him said plot in
accordance with the revised approved layout. Let the Respondent be also
directed to execute a revised/supplementary sale deed as necessary accordingly
in favour of this Complainant alongwith;
b) In addition to the above, let the Ld. Forum direct the Respondent to execute
the agreed development work in the colony related to the plot sold by him and
as a part of the same, let him provide basic necessity by arranging electricity,
passage road, water, sanitation etc., as promised by him to his members.
c) That let the said Respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
(rupees fifty thousand) to this Complainant for causing mental agony to this
Complainant for not arranging basic amenities as above and delay caused due
to non-commencement development work.
d) That, let the Ld. Forum pass any such assistance, relief in favour of this
Complainant at its sole discretion as it deems fit.
e) Let the cost of this Complaint be directed to be paid to the Complainant."
3 . Complaints were contested by the Opposite Party by filing reply. Opposite Party
raised the issue of maintainability of the Complaint. It was stated that the Complaints
were barred by limitation as they were filed after an inordinate delay of 11 years.
District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to pass an order for revision of the
registered document. It was contended that the sale deed was not executed by the
Opposite Party. Ex-President of the Petitioner-Society, Mr. Rakesh Sharma had executed
the sale deed in his personal capacity because the Opposite Party had not authorized
him to execute the sale deed. Complainants were not Members of the Society as they
had not deposited any amount with the Society. Complainants had not impleaded
Rakesh Sharma as Opposite Party in the Complaint. The Complaints, therefore, were
liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary Party. On merits, Opposite Party
contended that on the date of execution of the sale deed there was no site plan in
existence of the land in question. The Complainants, in collusion with Rakesh Sharma,
created the purported site plan and attached the same with the sale deed. The Opposite
Party for the first time on 03.03.2003 got the layout of the land officially approved and
prior to that there was no layout in existence.
4. District Forum, after hearing Learned Counsel for the Parties and going through the
record, allowed Complaint Nos. 366/2004, 367/2004 & 345/2004, vide separate orders
dated 08.02.2008 and granted exactly similar relief to the Complainants. Order passed
in CC/266/2004 is as follows:-
"A. The opposite party must clear the position of plot NO. A-58 mentioned in
the sale deed executed earlier and the plot NO. 58 in the new layout which was
approved at its instance and execute the new revised sale deed in favour of the
complainant at the expense of the complainant and completely finish the whole
development work of the colony within three months.

20-06-2022 (Page 2 of 5) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

 B. The opposite party society shall pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.
1000/- as complaint cost (Rupees one thousand only)."
5 . District Forum also allowed Consumer Complaint NO. 81/2005 filed by the
Complainant P.N. Ahirwar, vide order dated 06.06.2005 and granted the similar relief as
stated above.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2008, Opposite Party filed separate First Appeal
Nos. 730/2008, 731/2008 & 1017/2008 before the State Commission. Against the order
dated 06.06.2005, Opposite Party filed First Appeal NO. 1075/2011. State Commission,
vide order dated 05.10.2010, dismissed First Appeal Nos. 730/2008, 731/2008 &
1017/2008. Further, State Commission, vide order dated 15.07.2011, dismissed First
Appeal NO. 1075/2011 as barred by limitation. This has led to filing of the instant
Revision Petitions.
7 . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both the Fora below failed to
appreciate that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint as an
element of "fraud" is involved in this case and the matter required detailed evidence and
cross-examination etc. It was further submitted that the Respondents/Complainants
were not Members of the Petitioner Society and the sale deed was executed by fraud in
collusion with the Ex-President of the Society, who was not authorized to execute the
sale deed. He submitted that the Fora below also failed to appreciate that the
Complaints were barred by limitation as the alleged sale deeds were executed in the
year 1993 and 1994 and the Consumer Complaints were filed in the year 2004 i.e. after
10 years of execution of sale deed. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was a
registered Society and works on 'no profit no loss basis.' Hence, there is no relationship
of Consumer and Service Provider and the Complaint was not maintainable. Learned
Counsel submitted that Section 94 of Madhya Pradesh Co-Operative Society Act, 1960
provided that a Complaint cannot be instituted in the Court of law without making the
Registrar of Co-operative Society as a Party. The Complaint, therefore, was liable to be
dismissed for non-joinder of necessary Party.
8 . Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants submitted that as the
Petitioner/Opposite Party got the revised layout sanctioned without intimation to the
Complainants, both the Fora below passed the orders in favour of the Complainants and
there is no illegality in the impugned order.
9 . Regarding the issue of limitation, it is pertinent to mention that the Complainants
had challenged the revised layout plan dated 03.03.2003. The cause of action for filing
the Complaint, thus, accrued to the Complainants on 03.03.2003. The Complaints were
filed in the year 2004, which were well within the limitation period. Regarding the
objection as to the maintainability of the Complaint, the Petitioner/Opposite Party sold
the plots to the Complainants and received consideration for the same. There was,
therefore, relationship of "Consumer" and "Service provider" between the Complainants
and the Opposite Party. District Forum held that the Complainants were in possession of
a registered sale deed which had not been revoked. In such a case the Complainant had
absolute right to request the Opposite Party to observe the conditions recorded in the
sale deed. As the plots had been sold by the Opposite Party to the Complainants it was
incumbent upon the Opposite Party that it should execute the revised sale deed in
favour of the Complainants. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
Complaint was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party as per Section 94
of Madhya Pradesh Co-Operative Society Act, 1960. Section 94 provides that no suit
shall be instituted against a society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching

20-06-2022 (Page 3 of 5) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

the constitution, management or business of the society without making the Registrar of
the Society as a party. The Respondents/Complainants filed Consumer Complaint on the
ground of deficiency in service of the Petitioner/Opposite Party. There is no bar in
Section 94 of the Act that a Consumer Complaint cannot be filed against the Co-
Operative Society without making the Registrar as a Party. The Consumer Complaints,
therefore, were maintainable in the District Forum. The allegation of the Complainants
was that the Petitioner/Opposite Party got the revised layout plan sanctioned without
intimation to them. Opposite Party did not produce any document to prove that it had
intimated the Complainants before sanction of revised layout plan. Regarding the issue
of execution of sale deed by the Ex-President (Rakesh Sharma) of the Society without
any authority, Opposite Party had not produced any document to show that the Opposite
Party had filed civil suit against Rakesh Sharma, former President and his acts as former
President have been declared to be void by the Court. Thus, all the acts done by the
former President of the Opposite Party including the registration of sale deed were
binding on the present officials of the Society.
1 0 . Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) is very limited. This
Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its
own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the petitioner succeeds in showing
that the Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of
justice. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra)
Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/0409/2011 : (2011) 11 SCC
269 has held as under:-
"13. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National
Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said
power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error
appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In
our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of
justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a
different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the
National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was
ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an
erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in
which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are
of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National
Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a
case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent
findings of two fora."
1 1 . Same principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and
Ors. (MANU/SC/0849/2016 : 2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as under:-
"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only
if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their
jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded
their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant
case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting
aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State
Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."

20-06-2022 (Page 4 of 5) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

12. As regards Revision Petitions Nos. 104/2011, 105/2011 and 106/2011, I see no
reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. There is no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 05.10.2010, warranting interference
in revisional jurisdiction.
1 3 . As regards RP/2914/2011, Appeal NO. 1075/2011 was dismissed by the State
Commission as barred by limitation, vide order dated 15.07.2011 with the observation
that the Petitioner-Society took the ground that the original file was misplaced and
another certified copy was received on 01.07.2011. State Commission held that the
Society and its Administration were under the obligation to look after the affairs of the
Society diligently. First Appeal NO. 1075/2011 was filed before the State Commission
after a delay of six years, one month and six days. I find that the State Commission was
justified in dismissing the Appeal as the Petitioner/Opposite Party failed to explain the
inordinate delay of six years, one month and six days.
14. For the foregoing discussion, Revision Petitions are dismissed with no order as to
cost.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

20-06-2022 (Page 5 of 5) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University