M.Lal vs PRESIDENT, THE LEIAH COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED

THIS is a review application preferred by the respondents under Section 13(2) of the MRTP Act, 1969 (Act for brief) against the order dated 2nd April, 1998 of this Commission. A brief mention of the facts of the case as well as the purport of the impugned order is necessary before the review application is taken up for analysis.

SHRI. M. Lal (complainant hereafter) is a member of Leiah Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (society hereafter). He was allotted a flat by the society for which he paid its price. In the initial stages, when the society had taken commercial connections for supply of electricity for constructing the flats, it was represented to the complainant that the society would provide temporary connections of power supply to the members (like the complainant) by installing meters after charging Rs. 150/- from each member. The meters were got fitted by the society which required the members to make payment for power consumption at the commercial rate. The complainant paid power consumption charges on the basis of meter reading between 20th July, 1991 and 25th August, 1992. The society, however in its letter dated 6th October, 92 demanded payment from the complainant towards power consumption charges, land tax and insurance premium. Despite protests by the complainant that he had paid all the charges, the society continued to issue demand letters. A Notice of Enquiry was issued charging the respondents of unfair trade practices under Section 36A of the MRTP Act calling upon them to enter their appearance and defend themselves against the charges. The respondents did not chose to furnish their reply nor did they choose to appear at the hearings after the initial stages. The Commission in its impugned order accepting the affidavit and averments of the complainant, directed the respondents to discontinue the alleged unfair trade practices and not to indulge in them future. It was also directed that the society should pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the complainant towards the mental agony undergone by him including the cost of litigation. This is the order which is sought to be reviewed by the respondents in their application under Section 13(2) of the Act.

The respondents have essentially averred in their review application that the dispute about the dues between the complainant and the society had been referred to arbitration under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 and that an award had been passed by the Joint Registrar (ARB), New Delhi. The respondents have also contended that this vital information had been suppressed by the complainant when he moved the Commission for enquiry and compensation. A further contention of the respondents is that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the provisions of Section 60 of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.

THE complainant furnished his reply to the review application. He has contended therein that he had mentioned in his original complaint application that there was an arbitration case and has added that he had enclosed the reply of the society submitted to the Joint Registrar (ARB) during the arbitration proceedings and also had furnished a copy of his letter addressed to the society of dated 26th May ''97 in which he had mentioned about the arbitration matter. THE complainant has further contended in his reply that the respondents did not file any reply to his complaint application during the main trial nor did they attend the proceedings. THE complainant has made new allegations against the society but those cannot be considered as they are not a part of the original complaint. At the review stage, no new allegations can be made or countenanced. The issue is very simple. The moot question to be answered is whether the complainant suppressed the fact that the dispute between him and the society had been sent to arbitration and whether the award of the Arbitrator had dealt with the dispute. There is no doubt that the complainant in para 13 of his complaint application has referred to the arbitration matter. But all that he has done is to furnish the society''s reply to his claim application in the matter taken up for arbitration by Joint Registrar (ARB), New Delhi. The complainant has not, in the main trial, furnished a copy of the award of the Joint Registrar (ARB) which indeed constitutes suppression of a material fact.

ON the other hand, the respondents have furnished alongwith the review application the award of the Arbitrator namely Joint Registrar (ARB), New Delhi under Section 61 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. A perusal of the award shows that the Arbitrator has indeed dealt with the very same dispute in respect of the dues owed by the complainant to the society. Section 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 states as follows : "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Co- operative Society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid employee of the society arises- xxx xxx xxx (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society . such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute."

Section 60(2) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 declares that a claim by the society for any debt or deemed due to it from a member, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not, will be a dispute for the purposes of Section 60(1) of the same Act. In the instant case, the complainant''s grievance is only regarding the amounts demanded by the society towards power consumption charges, land tax, insurance premium etc. This very grievance was referred to arbitration and the Joint Registrar (ARB), New Delhi as the Arbitrator has given his award under Section 61 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. In this view of the matter, Section 60 of the said Act comes into play and therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

THE fact that the complainant did not furnish a copy of the arbitration award implies that he has approached the Commission with unclean hands. Furnishing just a copy of the society''s reply to his claim application in the matter pending before the Joint Registrar (ARB), New Delhi is not enough as it does not convey the correct position that an award of the Arbitrator has given a quietus to the dispute. He has not been can did enough to bring on record the contents of the Arbitrator''s award which had dealt with the very same grievances he has voiced in the complaint application, he filed in this Commission.

THE complainant during the hearing of the review application pointed out Section 4(1) of the MRTP Act, 1969 to state that the said Act is in addition to any other law for the time being in force and that therefore the fact that there was an arbitration case under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 should not come in the way of the proceedings in this Commission and in particular the jurisdiction of the case. This is an untenable argument as Section 4(1) of the MRTP Act, not only states that the MRTP Act shall be in addition to any other law for the time being in force, but also states that it shall not be in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. THE complainant''s argument deserves to be and is rejected. In this view of the matter, the review application is allowed and the impugned order of this Commission dated 2nd April, 98 is revoked. As indicated in the preceding paragraph in view of Section 4(1) of the MRTP Act, the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised in the complaint application which stands already covered by the Arbitrator''s award under Section 61 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. The complaint application is, therefore, rejected and the Notice of Enquiry discharged. R.A. allowed.