B. DHAIYA Vs. HARYANA OFFICERS & PUBLIC ENTERPRISES EMPLOYEES WELFARE AND COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.5.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ('the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 3660 of 2001, whereby the State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the District Forum on the ground of limitation. Briefly put the facts relevant for disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent -Cooperative Society was engaged in the development and construction of flat in Hope Apartments in Pocket X, Sector 15, Urban Estate, Gurgaon for its members. The petitioner originally was not a Member of the Cooperative Society which commenced the development and construction work in 1993. The petitioner in the year 1995 approached the respondent -Society for becoming a Member, the respondent Society vide letter dated 28.7.1995 acceded to the request of the petitioner for enrollment as a member, subject to certain conditions. The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below:

(2.) THE petitioner completed the formalities and paid the demanded sum of Rs. 9.5 lakh along with interest of Rs. 4,75,643 calculated at the rate of 30% on the principal amount and he was enrolled as a Member. Subsequent to the enrollment flat No. 139 Hope Apartments, Pocket X, Sector 15 II, Gurgaon was allotted to the petitioner. Subsequently, in view of the order of the State Commission in the matter of one original member Mr. B.K. Aggarwal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haryana v. Haryana Officer and Public Enterprises Employees Welfare Cooperative Group Housing Society, the respondent held General Body meeting on 15.3.1998, to consider the revised rate of interest in the context of the decision of the State Commission and passed the following resolution:

(3.) IN view of the above the revision petitioner sought refund of the excess interest charged from him at the time of enrollment as a member. The request was declined, claiming deficiency of service petitioner approached the District Forum, Gurgaon.