Structured Summary of the Opinion — Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gandhinagar (Complaint No.123 of 2021)
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a consumer complaint (Complaint No. 123 of 2021) filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gandhinagar.
The complainant is Mr. Yogesh Kantilal Patel (noted in the record as the current Chairman and member of Ratna Paradise Housing Co‑operative Service Society), who claims ownership of flats B/101, B/102 and B/202 in the society. The opponents are Ratna Paradise Housing Co‑operative Service Society Ltd., represented through its committee members (Hiren Himmatlal Shah, Manish Shah, Vijay Somabhai Patel, Vivek Dhirubhai Patel and Amit Rawal).
The complainant filed the application under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking directions to prohibit alleged unfair and restrictive practices by the society and claiming damages of Rs.60,000. The matter proceeded on pleadings and documents filed by both sides, including a written statement and affidavit for the opponents (pages 147–174, affidavit dated 01.09.2021) and a rejoinder by the complainant (pages 177–187). Written arguments and documentary exhibits (including a rent contract) were placed on record by the parties. The matter was heard in open court and the judgment was pronounced on 5 January 2022.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the consumer forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute that arises from internal management and resolutions of a registered co‑operative housing society between its members.
- Whether the complainant qualifies as a "consumer" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act (reference in the text to Section 2(7)), given that he is alleged to be carrying on boarding and lodging (renting/leasing) activity from his flat.
- Whether the dispute is barred from the forum by alternative statutory remedies under the Co‑operative Societies law (references in the text to Section 96 and Section 166 of the Co‑operative Societies Act) such that this Commission lacks jurisdiction.
- Whether the internal resolutions and policies of the co‑operative society, and alleged breaches thereof, are matters for the Registrar of Co‑operative Societies or other statutory forum rather than the consumer forum.
Arguments of the Parties
Complainant's Arguments (as recorded)
- The complainant contends he is a member of the society and the society is a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act and has violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
- He seeks directions to restrain the opponents from restrictive and unfair practices that prevent bachelor girls from being tenants/paying guests in his flat and claims damages (Rs.60,000).
- He relies on a list of documents (index, registered bylaws, resolutions 13‑B and 14, correspondence, emails, and certain judgments cited by serial numbers in the record) and filed written arguments and a rent contract to support his claim that his activity (providing lodging to college girls) is not a commercial activity that would exclude him from being a consumer.
Opponents' Arguments (as recorded)
- The opponents assert that the dispute is essentially an internal dispute between members of a registered co‑operative society and that alternative statutory remedies are available under the Co‑operative Societies law; therefore, the consumer forum has no jurisdiction and the complaint is not maintainable.
- They contend that the society is residential and not formed for commercial business; the complainant is carrying on boarding/lodging (rental) activity from his flat and thus is engaged in commercial activity, which disqualifies him from being a "consumer" under the Act.
- They argue that members do not pay consideration for services from the society (only reimbursements for costs) and therefore the complainant cannot claim to be a consumer for such internal matters; they rely on provisions of the Gujarat Co‑operative Societies Act (Section 96) and Section 166 of the Co‑operative Societies Act as barring jurisdiction of courts/forums in such disputes.
- They allege the complainant has not come with clean hands, has suppressed material facts, breached society bylaws, and that principles of natural justice were not violated by them. They seek dismissal with heavy costs (they sought Rs.1,00,000 in pleading).
Table of Precedents Cited
The opinion refers to "judgments relied by the complainant" and notes that the complainant's counsel produced copies of judgments, but the provided text does not identify any precedent by name or citation.
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission summarized and applied the following reasoning, as recorded in the opinion:
-
Jurisdictional threshold: The Commission treated the dispute at the threshold as an internal dispute between members of a registered co‑operative housing society concerning society resolutions, policies and internal management. The Commission emphasized that such disputes are ordinarily subject to the statutory remedies provided under co‑operative society law and may fall within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Co‑operative Societies rather than the consumer forum.
-
Character of complainant's activity: The Commission found that the complainant himself admitted to renting/leasing his flat and providing boarding and lodging services to "bachelor girls studying in college." The Commission characterized this as commercial activity and observed that a person engaged in such commercial activity could be excluded from the definition of "consumer" (reference made to Section 2(7) of the Act as cited in the record).
-
Effect on fundamental rights claim: The Commission noted that the complainant could not plausibly plead breach of fundamental rights (Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21) arising from his own commercial boarding/lodging activity vis‑à‑vis the society. The Commission treated the invocation of fundamental rights as unsustainable in the context of the internal dispute.
-
Forum discretion and prior warning: The record shows the Commission had informed the complainant's counsel at the outset that the complaint appeared to be an internal society dispute with statutory remedies and therefore might not be maintainable before the consumer forum. Despite this, on the counsel's request, notices were issued and the matter was heard; however, the Commission expressly stated it did not dwell upon merits because of the threshold jurisdictional and maintainability issues.
-
Conclusion on maintainability: On the basis that (a) the dispute arises out of internal management between members of a registered co‑operative society, (b) the complainant is engaged in boarding/lodging (commercial) activity and therefore does not fall within the consumer definition for the purposes pleaded, and (c) statutory remedies under co‑operative society law exist, the Commission concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The Commission's analysis cites statutory sections referenced in the pleadings (Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act under which the complaint was filed; references in the respondents' pleadings to Section 96 and Section 166 of the Co‑operative Societies Act; and a reference to Section 2(7) on the definition of "consumer"). The judgment does not elaborate or cite named judicial precedents in the provided text.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
The complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/maintainability and for the complainant not qualifying as a consumer in the circumstances pleaded.
Direct consequences and orders given in the judgment:
- The complaint stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
- The costs are to be deposited in the Commission within 10 days from the date of the order; after deposit the amount shall be disbursed in equal portions to the opponent members.
- A copy of the judgment is to be given to the parties free of charge. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 05 January 2022.
Broader implications:
The opinion confines its result to the direct effect on the parties: the complaint is dismissed for being an internal society dispute and because the complainant is treated as carrying on a commercial activity that excludes him from the definition of "consumer" for the purposes of the claim. The provided opinion does not state or declare any new legal precedent beyond its adjudication of these facts and legal contentions.
Bench and Signatures: Hon'ble Mr. D. T. Soni, President; Mr. Jigar P. Joshi, Member. Pronounced on 05 January 2022.
Show full summary ...