PHIROZ SAVAKSHA GREEN vs BLUE FOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES

THE complainant has joined a scheme known as " Aarsi Corner Flats" organised by the opposite parties. THE scheme considered both commercial and residential premises. THE complainant has purchased a flat No. 403 on 4th floor for the price of Rs. 350 lakhs. THEre is no dispute that the scheme is completed and possession was handed over in the year 1988. THE society was also formed and registered in February 88 under the provisions of Gujarat Co-op. Societies Act. THE complainant has also become the member of the said society. THE society is supposed to provide the members water supply, lift maintenance, general lights maintenance, parking plot, sanitation, security etc.

THE opposite party No. 1 is the scheme organiser and opposite party No. 2 is the Chairman of the society and opposite party No. 3 is the member of Flat No. 404 and opposite party No. 4 is also a member of flat No. 401. THE complainant has alleged that the opposite party No. 4 is also the owner of flat No. 402 but this fact does not appear to be true. THE complainant has apprehended that the owner of flat No. 404 the opposite party No. 3 herein and his wife Minaxiben were likely to transfer this flat to one Devendrabhai Shah, a well-known Ayurvedic practitioner for the purpose of his clinic for the ailments like Haras, masa, bhagandar and such allied diseases. According to his information the banakat was also executed by the opposite party No. 3 in favour of the said vaidya who has roaring practice and if this purchase is completed the said vaidya will use this residential premises for practice and will cause great nuisance to the complainant and other members of the residential flats on 4th floor. The complainant alleged that the opposite party No. 2, the Chairman did not take steps to check the usage of flat Nos. 401 and 402 which are also alleged to be used for non-residential purposes. According to the complainant number of persons are visiting non-residential premises resulting into increase in cost of service and electrical burning charges and other expenses which have to be borne by other members including the complainant.

The complainant has, therefore, prayed that the opposite party No. 2 may be directed to take strong action against the opposite party No''s. 3 and 4 restraining them from making nonresidential use of the flats. He has further prayed that the opposite party No. 2 may be restrained from transferring flat No. 404 for non-residential purpose and to award damages of Rs. 1,20,000/- from all the opposite parties jointly for causing him mental torture, suffering and agony. Lastly, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 be directed not to allow the transfer of flat No. 404 to the proposed member Devendrabhai Shah.

SO far the prayers regarding issuing of prohibitory orders against respective parties are concerned, it is a settled position of law that the Consumer Forums have no power or jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction like Civil Court. Our jurisdiction is restricted only to passing orders as provided under Section 14 of the Act. So far the building scheme is concerned, we had permitted the complainant-purchaser to point out his case if there is any deficiency in service. However, in the instant case, the builder has completed the building construction, transferred the flats by forming a co-operative society and has also handed over the possession of the flats to respective individual members who had booked the flats with him.

SO far the other disputes between the Coop. SOciety, its Chairman and members are concerned, they are not consumer disputes and if the Chairman or any of the members is committing breach of bye-laws or statute of the Co-op. SOcieties Act, the complainant can raise the dispute before the Registrar of Co-op. SOcieties or the Nominees Court. We have not entertained this dispute and have not decided the same on merits, though prima facie it appears to us that non-residential use of this premises might create some hardship to the complainant. It has also been argued that a dispute between the members and the society is also pending before the learned Nominee Board. It would not be proper for us to entertain this matter on this ground also. ORDER For the reasons stated above the complaint is dismissed without entering into the merits. In the circumstances there will be no order as to cost. Complaint dismissed.