SHIKAR SAHKARI AVAS SAMITHI Vs. PRAVEEN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order dated 21st May, 2001 of Uttar Pradesh State Commission in Appeal No. 1674/SC/99. The brief facts are as follows : Respondent/original complainant Shri Praveen Singh approached the District Forum, Lucknow vide his complaint dated 30.10.1998 alleging that the Shikhar Sahkari Avas Samiti, Lucknow allotted him a plot of land, Plot No. 69/220, having an area of 1980 sq. ft. at village Ganneka Purva in September, 1989 and that the entire amount of consideration namely Rs. 68,310/- was paid to the society and that the possession of the land was also taken in 1996 but the society on one pretext or the other has not executed registration deed transferring the plot to him. He alleged that out of Rs. 68,310/- paid by him, Rs. 10,000/- was towards registration charges. No appearance was put up on behalf of the Shikar Sahkari Avas Samiti before District Forum inspite of proper notice.

(2.) However, the District Forum decided the matter on merits and held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Avas Samiti in not registering the land deed and in stopping construction work of the complainant. The appeal filed by the Avas Samiti before the State Commission was dismissed though the State Commission made sight modifications in the order of the District Forum. The State Commission directed the Avas Samiti to get the sale deed registered in favour of the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order and paid a compensation of Rs. 6,000/-. The order also provided for the payment of compensation at Rs. 1,000/- p.m. for non compliance of the order and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

(3.) The case of the revision petitioners is that the District Forum did not record any findings as to the service of notice of the case on revisionist; that the Forum was wrong in passing an ex parte order; but Section 70 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society Act passed the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the transaction, if any, was between the respondent and the ex-Secretary of the revisionist-Society and that the revisionist Society is not involved in the case; and that there is no consumer dispute as the respondent is not a consumer.