Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Awas Sangh And Anr. vs Chandrashekhar And Ors.

THESE seven revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Sangh, challenging the impugned order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Since the question of fact of law involved in all these Revision Petitions, is the same, we go on to dispose of these seven revision petitions through a common single order.

THE facts leading to filing these revision petitions are that the respondents/ complainants had obtained loan for house construction from the second respondent, i.e., Adarsh Shaskiya Karmchari Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha (hereinafter referred to as Cooperative Society) by mortgaging property, in question, who in turn, obtained finance'' from the petitioner, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Awas Sangh (hereinafter referred to as Sangh) after mortgaging this document. It is not in dispute that the respondent /complainant had paid the due amount(s) to the Cooperative Society, but when the documents were not being released and mortgage was not being discharged, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, directed the OPs before the District Forum to return the title -deed to the respondent/complainant. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, which was dismissed. Hence, these revision petitions are filed before us.

THE facts of the case in these RPs are similar as in the cases referred to earlier, except that in these cases, the order was passed by the District Forum on 30.7.2001 against which appeal was filed before the State Commission, which was dismissed by order of the State Commission on 25.6.2003. Since no revision petition was filed against the order passed by the State Commission, the order passed by the State Commission had attained finality, yet when the orders passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission were not being implemented, an execution application was filed before the District Forum, who decided to proceed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against which two separate appeals were filed before the State Commission, wherein title deeds were produced before the State Commission and they were directed to be delivered to the complainants. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner besides raising the point of law has also reiterated the observation of the State Commission passed in Appeal under execution proceedings, which reads as follows: "....The Federation is free to execute order and recover the amount from the Society......"

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length on the merits of the revision petitions filed before us and find that the very nomenclature of Sangh (Federation) itself indicates that there is a symbiotic relationship between the respondent No. 2 Society and the petitioner Sangh. The relationship is further strengthened by the fact that both are created and registered under the State Cooperative Societies Act'' and are under the regime of the hierarchy of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of the State concerned. Respondent No. 2 Society, in our view, was acting as agent of the petitioner Sangh, in obtaining and disbursing the amount and admittedly since the loan amount has been paid to the Society and if this is not paid, further by the Society to the Sangh, the loanee can under no circumstances be held accountable or be punished for this. The matter is between the Sangh and the Society, as rightly held by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission, the fight between the two, i.e., the Society and the Sangh can in no way, affect the rights of the borrowers / complainants in these cases, in view of which we see no merit in these revision petitions, which are dismissed.

HOWEVER , in regard to revision petition Nos. 2709 and 2710 of 2007, we like to reiterate what the State Commission has observed in execution proceeding "that the Federation is free to execute the order and recover from the society."

IN the aforementioned circumstances, while reiterating the observation of the State Commission in respect of RP Nos. 2709 and 2710 of 2007, we see no merit in these revision petitions. Dismissed.