VIRENDER JAIN versus ALAKNANDA COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 1058 · Decided: 23-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 1058 
VIRENDER JAIN 
v. 
ALAKNANDA COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING 
SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2010 etc.) 
APRIL 23, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND · 
SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE, JJ.] 
C 
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: 
s.2 (1) (d) -- 'Consumer'-Members of Co-operative Group 
Housing Society - Challenging action of Society terminating 
their membership by refunding the amounts deposited by 
D them - Held: Members of the Society are 'consumer' within 
· the meaning of s. 2 ( 1) ( d) - Further, the action of Society even 
if approved by authorities under Co-operative Societies Act, 
cannot deprive the members of their legitimate right to seek 
remedy under Consumer Protection Act which is in addition 
to other remedies available to them under Cooperative 
E Societies Act - State Commission directed to decide appeals 
filed by complainants on merits - Haryana Co-operative 
Societies Act, 1984. 
The appellants, who were members of respondent 
F no.1 Co-operative Group Housing Society, filed 
comp!aints uls 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 
as respo11dent no.1 returned the amount deposited by 
them and indirectly terminated their membership on the 
ground that they had failed to deposit the required 
G installments. The District Forum dismissed the 
complaints on merits. However, the State Commission 
and the National Commission held that the appellants 
could not be treated as 'consumer' within the meaning 
of s.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. 
H 
1058 
VI RENDER JAIN v. ALAKNANDA COOPERATIVE 
1059 
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 In view of the judgments of this Court, it 
must be held that the appellants, who had deposited the 
instalments of price for the flats being constructed by 
respondent No.1 are covered by the definition of 8 
'consumer' contained in s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer 
Protection Act, 1986 and the contrary view expressed by 
the National Commission in B.K. Prabha's case* which 
has been reiterated in the impugned order is not correct. 
[para 12] [1068-E-F] 
Lucknow Development Authority v. MK. Gupta, 1993 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 615 = (1994) 1 SCC 243; Chandigarh Housing 
Board v. Avtar Singh, 2010 (12) SCR 96 = (2010) 10 SCC 
194 - relied on. 
*B.K. Prabha v. Secretary Kendriya Upadyarasanga 
(2004) 2 CLT 305 - overruled. 
c 
D 
1.2 As regards the approval of action of respondent 
no.1 by the authorities constituted under the Cooperative 
Societies Act, the appellants, in their complaints had 
E 
primarily challenged the action of respondent No.1 to 
refund the amounts deposited by them and to extinguish 
their entitlement to get the flats. Therefore, the mere fact 
that the action taken by respondent No.1 was approved 
by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and 
F 
higher authorities, cannot deprive the appellants of their 
legitimate right to seek remedy under the Act, which is 
in addition to the other remedies available to them under 
the Cooperative Societies Act and availability of 
alternative remedies is not a bar to the entertaining of a G 
complaint filed under the Act. [para 13-14] [1068-H; 1069-
A-B] 
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. madhusudhan 
H 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 2 S.C.R. 
A Reddy 2012 (2) SCR 1065 = (2012) 2 SCC 506; Secretary,: 
Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. 
Lalitha 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 659 = (2004)1 sec 305; 
Kishore Lal v. ES/ Corporation, 2007 (6) SCR 139 = (2007) 
4 SCC 579; Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi, 1996 
B (4) Suppl. SCR 820 = (1996) 6 SCC 385; Skypak Couriers 
Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 324 = 
(2000) 5 SCC 294; Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal 
Exports (2011) 10 sec 316 - relied on. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1.3 The impugned order as also the orders passed 
by the State Commission are set aside and the matters 
are remitted to the State Commission with the direction 
that it shall decide the appeals filed by the appellants on 
merits. [para 16] [1069-G] 
Case Law Reference: 
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 615 
relied on 
para 7 
2010 (12) SCR 96 
relied on 
para 10 
(2004) 2 CLT 305 
overruled 
para 11 
2012 (2) SCR 1065 
relied on 
para 12 
2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 659 
relied on 
para 12 
2007 (6) SCR 139 
relied on 
para 12 
1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 820 
relied on 
para 13 
2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 324 
relied on 
para 13 
(2011) 10 sec 316 
relied on 
para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.