RAJ KUMAR GOYAL Vs. KAMAL CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven revision petitions, as detailed in the heading above, have been filed against the impugned order dated 02.11.2010, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in appeals No. 125/2010 and 128/2010 and order dated 01.05.2012 passed by the same Commission in appeals no. 350/2012, 110/2012, 111/2012, 112/2012 and order dated 01.08.2012 in appeal no. 234/2012. This single order shall dispose of all seven revision petitions and a copy of the same be placed on each file.

(2.) The facts involved are that the complainants in all these cases became members of a Cooperative House Building Society, known as 'the Nectar Cooperative House Building Society' with its operating office at SCO No. 208-209, Top Floor, Sector- 34A, Chandigarh, which is stated to have been formed with the objective of constructing flats/allotment of plots to its members at Sector-74A, Mohali, Punjab. The President of the Society is Sudeep Singh Sabharwal, resident of house no. 1285, Sector-34, Chandigarh. Smt. Kulwinder Kaur is the cashier of the Society, whereas the petitioner, Raj Kumar Goyal is the Vice-President of the Society and the petitioner Balkar Singh is stated to be the Secretary of the Society. The complainants, alongwith many other persons, were enrolled as members of the said Society by making payment of Rs. 510/- vide receipts on different dates. The complainants were also made to pay requisite membership fee of Rs. 10,500/- vide receipts issued on different dates. It has been alleged in the complaints that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was also paid by the complainants in cash for which no receipt was issued. In addition, a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was deposited by the complainants with the Society and hence, in total a sum of Rs. 6,10,500/- was paid by the members for obtaining flat/plot through the Society. It has been alleged in the consumer complaints that they had been assured by the petitioners that land had been purchased for the construction of flats etc. and the work shall be started very soon. However, even after lapse of sufficiently long time, no construction work of any sort was started by the Society, neither the possession of the proposed site was delivered to the Society. The requisite approvals/permissions for raising the construction were also not received. The complainants then wrote letters on various dates to the Society for refund of the amounts deposited by them, but on the failure of the OPs to give the said refund, the consumer complaints in question were filed. It has been alleged that the petitioner Raj Kumar Goyal being the Vice-President and Balkar Singh as Secretary took an active interest in enrolling the members and collecting money from them.

(3.) In complaint no. 1096/2008 filed by Malwinder Singh Battu and his wife Mrs. Manpreet Kaur, it was stated that Balkar Singh and Raj Kumar Goyal got the Society registered in the name and style of 'the Nectar Cooperative House Building Society' with its administrative office at SCO No. 208-209, Top Floor, Sector- 34A, Chandigarh. Balkar Singh was stated to be the Secretary and Raj Kumar Goyal was stated to be the Vice President of the Society, and they were in charge of running the day to day work. They used to collect money for raising the Society and do all work related to the Society. It was stated that Balkar Singh met the complainants at house no. 2854, Sector 38C, Chandigarh and induced them to become the members of the Society for the allotment of a flat. He assured them that the land had already been purchased by the Society and construction work would start soon. On his assurance/inducement, the complainants paid membership fee of Rs. 10,500/- and they were enrolled as members of the Society. Another sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid in cash through Balkar Singh for which no receipt was issued by him. Thereafter, the complainants paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,500/- on different dates to the Society. The said Balkar Singh had been telling the complainants that the site plans had been prepared and 'bhumi pujan' would be done in December, 2006, but the same was not performed as promised. When the complainants asked Balkar Singh to show them the papers relating to construction on the land purchased by the Society, he neither showed them the papers, nor specified any date or month for starting the construction, rather issued them a share certificate dated 01.12.2006. When the complainants came to know that the registered deed for the land meant for construction of flats, had not been executed by the Society, they sent letter dated 28.03.2007 to the Society requesting for refund of the amount paid. However, despite sending a legal notice, the refund was not given. The consumer complaint was then filed seeking refund of Rs. 6,10,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization, Rs. 5,00,000/- for compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.