BHAI MATI DASS COOPERATIVE URBAN THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. vs SHAURYA HOUSING LIMITED

This First Appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.08.2015 of the Delhi, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ''the State Commission'') by the appellant Bhai Mati Dass Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Society booked 8 flats (Gokul Apartments in VirandavanVatika) with the Opposite party on 13.4.2008. The opposite party has not given the possession of the flat in spite of several letters from the complainant Society. Hence a consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission with the following prayer:- "(a)thereby restraining the opposite party to mortgaged/make third party interest, take loan from any bank to the disadvantage of the complainant,

(b) to direct the opposite party to hand over the possession of the 5 flats in Govardhan Apartment Project of opposite party immediately without further delay with damages and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards deficiency in services and mental agony & stress faced by office bearers, managing committee members & thousands of members of a registered society,

(c) Or in alternative, direct the opposite party to pay Rs.55,88,736/- legally recoverable from them as explained in the complaint with interest @ 18% p.a. till the disposal of this complaint plus Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for deficiency in services and mental tension, agony and stress to office bearers, managing committee members & thousands of members of the complainant society registered for service of weaker & retired persons of the society in accordance to National Objectives of Social & Economical Welfare state.

(d) To pay the cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant of the complaint.

(e) Any other order as deemed fit and proper be also passed in favour of complainant and against the opposite party."

The State Commission vide its order dated 26.08.2015 dismissed the complaint in limine on the ground that the complainant does not come under the definition of "consumer" as the flats were intended to have been booked for commercial purposes.

Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the State Commission, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel argued that the complainant Society is a legal person and has filed a complaint being a complainant as defined under Section 2(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, which reads as follows:- "(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force; or"

The learned counsel stated that the Society had booked 8 flats for the use of its members, who visit Vrindavan for pilgrimage/worship purposes. In this pursuit no commercial activity is involved. The State Commission has wrongly interpreted the word ''business'' appearing in the bye laws of the Society. Object (iii) mentions that the Society can own lands and buildings or take them on lease or rent for the business of the society. He emphasised that the word ''business'' appearing in the above object means only the activities of the Society which are not of commercial nature. Thus, the State Commission has grossly erred in not treating the complainant Society as a consumer.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the records. The State Commission has mentioned the following in its order:- "In para 22 of the complaint, the complainant has made a bald statement that he is a ''consumer'' in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Bye laws of the complainant society provide for the objects of the society which are reproduced below:

"The objects of the Society are to promote the economic, social and cultural interest of the members and more particularly to arrange:

(i) To create funds to be lent to its members for various purposes.

(ii) To undertake Thrift and Credit Business by mobilizing deposits from members.

(iii) To own lands and buildings or to take them on lease or rent for the business of the society.

(iv) To undertake welfare activities particularly for the members and employees and their children for the promotion of their moral education and physical improvement;

(v) To undertake other measures designed to encourage in the members the spirit and practice of thrift, self help and mutual help;

(vi) To do all such things as are incidental or conductive to the attainment of any or all of the above objects."

Perusal of the object III shows that the complainant owns lands and buildings for the business of the society. Clearly the complainant is indulging in commercial activities and the flats are being required not for the purpose of earning livelihood but purely for a commercial purpose. In the circumstances, we are of the firm view that the complainant does not fall within the ambit of the definition ''consumer'' as provided u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed in limini."

The complainant in his complaint has also mentioned the following :- "4. That based on above said assurances & offers of the opposite party, the Managing Committee of the complainant society with the approval of General Body booked 8 flats (GokulApartments) in VirandavanVatika for the use of its members to visit scared Vrindavan to seek the blessing of All Mighty at the Holy shrine and temples as a welfare measure for its members. Possession of the flats was to be given on or before 10.08.2010."

Above quoted portion of the complaint reveals that 8 flats were booked for the use of the members of the Society for staying at Vrindavan. Nowhere, it has been said that these facilities would be provided free. In fact during the arguments, it was informed that this facility will be something like ''dharamshala'' . It is obvious that the Society would be charging some fee or rent for such stay from their members in any form whether directly or indirectly. Moreover, object no.(ii) of the Society refers to the credit and thrift business which is a totally commercial activity. Hence "business" in the object (iii) cannot be read in total exclusion of the business mentioned in object no (ii). Accordingly, I am of the view that the purpose of purchasing these flats is definitely commercial. The complainant has nowhere pleaded that the flats have been booked for earning livelihood of the complainant/members through self-employment. Hence, the case is not covered under the explanation given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

From the discussions above, I am of the view that the State Commission has critically examined the issue and has rightly interpreted the objects of the Society in reaching to the conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, I find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 26.08.2015 of the State Commission. Accordingly, the First Appeal No. 988 of 2015 having no force is dismissed in limine.