Kiran vs Bharat Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd. & 2 Ors

V.K. Jain, J

The complainant/respondent no.3 Smt. Kalawati was a member of respondent no.1 society and a plot bearing no. 14/5, Pragati Nagar in Ujjain was allotted to her by the society. However, the title deed of the said plot was not executed in her favour. Being aggrieved, she approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint impleading the society as well as Ujjain Development Authority as the parties to the Consumer Complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the society as well as by the respondent Ujjain Development Authority. It transpired from the reply filed by Ujjain Development Authority that the plot in question had been allotted by the society to the petitioner. Thereupon, the District Forum directed impleadment of the petitioner as a party to the Consumer Complaint.

Vide its order dated 23.6.2014, the District Forum allowed the Consumer Complaint on merits and directed the society to execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant. The allotment made by the society in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Forum.

The petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the District Forum. The society however, challenged the said order by preferring an appeal before the concerned State Commission. During the pendency of the appeal, the complainant stated before the State Commission that he was ready to pay all the dues including the development charges to the society. The society stated that if the complainant pays all the dues and development charges, it will send her name to Ujjain Development Authority for allotment of the plot.

The State Commission, on the basis of the above referred statements made before it, directed the society to issue demand letter to the complainant within 15 days. He was directed to pay the dues within 15 days thereafter and the Development Authority was directed to allot the plot to the complainant after receiving the said amount and completion of all the formalities.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

It is evident from a perusal of the order passed by the District Forum though the said Forum had held against the petitioner by cancelling the allotment made to her and directing execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner did not challenge the order which the District Forum had passed against her. It is only the society which challenged the said order but later on, agreed to issue allotment to the complainant on her paying the entire dues including development charges. Though this happened on an application filed by the Development Authority, the society agreed to send the name of the complainant for allotment by the Development Authority on the complainant paying the entire dues.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the society had decided to challenge the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner was not advised to file a separate appeal, challenging the said order. He also submits that the State Commission did not hear the petitioner before passing an order based upon the consent between the complainant and the society.

In my opinion, since the consent agreed between the complainant and the society was prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, she ought to have been heard before passing any order on the application filed by the Development Authority. She having not been heard, her claim in respect of the plot came to be denied, without giving an opportunity of hearing to her.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned State Commission to decide the appeal filed by the society afresh after hearing all the parties, including the petitioner.

The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 24.5.2019.

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.