ATAM PARKASH Vs. SILVERTON COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity to be referred as C. P. Act) by Mr. Atam Parkash seeking compensation of sum of Rs.9.5 lakhs against the opposite parties (for short referred to as O. Ps.) and for issuance of a direction to the O. Ps. to allot same type of dwelling unit.

(2.) The Complainant, Mr. Atam Parkash, applied for membership of the O. P. No.1, namely, the Silverton Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. , Chandigarh (for short, hereinafter called the Society) and was admitted as a member in the year 1987. The Complainant was eligible to be considered for allotment under the scheme for allotment of land to Co-op. House Building Society Scheme, 1991. The President of the O. P. No.1 - Society sent letters to the eligible members of the Society regarding allotment of land. According to the Complainant he was eligible for category-A and deposited a sum of Rs.12,200/- on 28.5.1992 with O. P. No.3, the Estate Officer. U. T. Chandigarh through O. P. No.1-Society. The amount was deposited in the name of the Estate Officer as per the requirement of the O. Ps. It is alleged that the Estate Officer, U. T. Chandigarh kept the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,200/- all through and it has been further alleged that the O. P. No.3, all of a sudden returned the amount of Rs.12,200/- deposited by the Complainant, to the Complainant through the O. P. No.1 - Society. The amount was returned on the ground that the Complainant was required to deposit a sum of Rs.67,000/- being 25% of earnest money plus interest. Accordingly, the Complainant deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs.67,000/- with a forwarding letter through the Pay Order No.72618 dated 6.4.1999 in the name of O. P. No.2, Chandigarh Housing Board (for short, heareinafter to be referred as CHB) at the behest of O. P. No.1- Society. The pay order was encashed by the O. Ps. Subsequently, the Complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.84,700/- by the OP No.1- Society. The Complainant also deposited the said sum of Rs.84,700/- through Cash Order dated 20.5.1999 in the name of O. P. No.1-Society. The Complainant was asked by OP No.1-Society vide letter dated 27.4.2001 to attend office of O. P. No.2-CHB and office of O. P. No.1- Society. Accordingly, the Complainant attended the office of O. P. No.2- CHB and the O. P. No.1- Society and satisfied both regarding his eligibility. The Complainant was, however, informed vide letter dated 10.5.2001 that his name did not exist in the screening list. The Complainant sent a letter dated 5.6.2001 to O. P. No.1, under Registered A. D. Post, who did not hear anything in respect of it. The Complainant received a letter dated 30.8.2001 from O. P. No.1- Society to which he sent a letter dated 5.9.2001 by way of reply. The Complainant was sent a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 5.9.2001 by the O. Ps. as against a sum of Rs.1,51,700/- deposited by the Complainant. There was a shortage of Rs.800/- in the amount which was actually refunded from the one which was deposited. The grievance of the Complainant is that he had hired the service of O. P. No.1- Society and paid timely expenses and monthly contributions but the O. P. No.1- Society failed to get the name of the Complainant cleared in the screening.

(3.) Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs, i. e. O. P. No.-1 Society, O. P. No.2 - CHB, O. P. Nos.3 to 5, Estate Officer, U. T. Chandigarh, Registrar, Coop, Societies, U. T. Chandigarh and Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, respectively.