NARAYANAPPA vs NTI Employees Housing Co-op Society Ltd

THE Revision Petitioner was a member of NTI Employees Housing Corporation Society Bangalore, who had applied for allotment of house site in 1986. In several instalments between 1986 and 1994, he had reportedly paid in all Rs.75,443/- to the society. Yet, no house-site was allotted to him. His complaint was considered favourably by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore (Urban) on 20.4.2005 and a refund of Rs.75,443/- was ordered in his favour, with 9% interest and compensation of Rs.5000/-.

THE complainant apparently wanted a site and not refund of the sital value. THErefore, he chose to move Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bangalore, seeking such a direction to the NTI Society under Section 70 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. It is difficult to understand why he chose this route when under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the appellate authority against the order of the District Forum is the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of the State. Eventually, he did prefer an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, but only with a delay of 374 days. The State Commission in its order 6.6.2006, did not accept time spent before the Joint Registry of Cooperative Societies as a valid reason to justify the delay. His appeal was, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay.

The present revision petition is against the above order of Karnataka State Commission dismissing the appeal of the Complainant. This revision petition was taken up on 1.09.2010 and the counsels for the two parties were heard. The case of the Revision Petitioner/Complainant is that he did not know the procedure of law and was wrongly advised to seek remedy before the Joint Registrar under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. This explanation cannot be accepted and has rightly been rejected by the Karnataka State Commission. The scheme of the nature and stages of relief to a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very clear and does not leave any scope for such confusion. If the complaint could take recourse to the provisions of this Act for invoking the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, he would have certainly known that the appeal against the order of the consumer forum would lie to the State Commission.

IN view of the above, we find absolutely no ground to interfere with the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No.1045 of 2006. The revision petition is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.