Revision Petition Nos. 1865 and 1867 of 2009. Case: 1. Haryana State Co-Operative Housing Federation Ltd. Bays No.49-52, Sec.-2, Panchkula Through its Manager 2. Haryana State Co-Operative Housing Federation Ltd. Bays No.49-52, Sec.-2, PanchkulaThrough its Manager and The Development Officer Housing Federation, Karnal Vs 1. Gurdev Singh S/o Shri Ram Ditta R/o Ward No.9 H.No. 369, Near Radhe Shyam Mandir, Tohana Distt., Fatehabad and The Tohana Naveen Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Tohana Distt., Fatehabad Through its President/Secretary [Alongwith Revision Petition Nos. 1866, 1869 and 1870 of 2009] 2. Devender Singh S/o Shri Nishi Kant R/o H. No. 686, Sector-6, Urban Estate, Karnal and The Krishna Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Karnal, Through its Secretary Rajesh Kumar near Hansi Chowk Kaithal Road, Karnal [Alongwith Revision Petition Nos. 1868, 1871 of 2009 and 33 of 2010]. Central Information Commission

Case NumberRevision Petition Nos. 1865 and 1867 of 2009
JudgesMr. Justice V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member Hon'ble Mr. Suresh Chandra, Member
IssueConsumer
Judgement DateNovember 04, 2011
CourtCentral Information Commission

Order:

Justice V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member

  1. By this common order, above mentioned eight revision petitions are being disposed of, as facts are similar in these petitions and common question of law is involved.

  2. In these petitions, there is a challenge to orders dated 30.1.2009, 25.2.2009 and 29.4.2009, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short 'State Commission') vide which State Commission dismissed the appeals of the petitioners.

  3. Facts as emerges from the complaints filed by respondent no.1 (complainants) before the District Forum are that they took loan from respondent no.2 - Tohana Modern Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (for short as 'Society') for construction of their houses. Complainants returned the loan amount to respondent no.2 and asked for return of their title-deed of the houses in question which were mortgaged at the time of advancing of loan but the same was not returned on the ground that there was huge amount due against the complainants towards the loan amount. Accordingly, title-deeds were not returned. Forced by these circumstances, complainants filed complaints before District Forum.

  4. Complaints were contested by the petitioner. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, a plea was taken that under the provisions of Sections 102, 103, 124 and 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. If any dispute had arisen between the members and Society/Federation, they should have filed arbitration reference under Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Society Act to the Registrar Cooperative Society, Haryana for decision under Section 103 of the Act. It was further pleaded that complainants have mortgaged their properties with the Society, which had further sub mortgaged the same in favour of the petitioner. It was averred that substantial amounts are outstanding against the complainants and the complaints merit dismissal.

  5. District Forum, accepted the complaints and issued directions to the petitioner to return the original title deeds deposited by the complainants.

  6. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed appeals before the State Commission which dismissed the appeals of the petitioner.

  7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Federation and there are no privities of contract between the petitioner and the complainants. The complainants obtained loan from the Society. Since, complainants had never taken loan from the petitioner, as such there were no privities of contract between the petitioner and the complainants. It is the duty and responsibility of the Society to clear the outstanding loan of the complainants. Petitioner is not responsible for the acts of the Society in any manner and as such the award should have been passed qua Society only.

  8. Counsel for petitioner in support of its contention has cited following judgments;

    (i) Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra, AIR 2001 (SC) 3095;

    (ii) G.M. Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. 2009 STPL (Web) 5 SC;

    (iii) Rambhau Namdeo Gajre Vs. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (Dead) through LRs, AIR (SC) 4342;

    (iv) Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council Kerala, 1994 (1) SCC 397 and

    (v) M/s Cheema Goods Transport Company Vs. Marudamalai Sri Murugan Textiles, AIR 1999 (SC) 796.

  9. On the other hand, it is contended by...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT