Parallel Proceedings On Same Issue In Different Forums Impermissible: Delhi State Commission Overturns District Commission's Order Against Philips Cooperative Group Housing

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant is a member of a housing society managed by Philips Cooperative Group Housing/developer, which launched a project called Philips Towers. The developer offered additional rooms and car parking spaces in the building's basement, with only 50 spaces available for 120 members, priced at Rs. 50,000 each. The complainant paid Rs. 50,000 in 1998 to book an additional space. The building was completed in 2001, and flats were allotted through a lottery. The complainant received a flat with one open car parking space, which was different from the additional basement parking for which payment was made. Despite the passage of over 20 years, the developer has not allotted the additional room or parking to the complainant. In 2013, the developer admitted in a letter that a completion certificate for the building had not been obtained due to structural issues related to allotting the additional rooms and parking. The developer offered to adjust the Rs. 50,000 payment against future maintenance dues and demanded Rs. 44,907 after adjustment. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, which allowed the complaint. It directed the developer to allot and deliver one additional room/parking space and pay Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation for deficiency in service. Being aggrieved by the District Commission's order, the developer appealed before the State Commission of Delhi.

Contentions of Developer

The developer submitted that Consumer Commissions do not have jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to Cooperative Group Housing Societies. In addition, they filed an application that an arbitration award passed in a similar dispute between the same parties and on similar facts is pending before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. Thus, in their submissions, they requested that the impugned order be set aside.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission observed that the primary issue was whether Consumer Commissions have the jurisdiction to resolve disputes between cooperative housing societies and their members. Referring to Hanuman Sahakari Pani Pruvatha Sanstha v. Ramchandra Bapuso, the National Commission held that disputes between members and societies touching the society's business must be resolved under cooperative laws, not by Consumer Commissions. Similar views were upheld in Kulve Gram Seva Shahakari Sangha Ltd. v. Mahabaleshwar Ramakrishna Bhat and Dilip Bapat v. Panchavati Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, affirming that cooperative societies fall under the jurisdiction of cooperative courts or registrars. The Commission noted that an arbitration award in D.S. Kundu v. Phillips Cooperative Group Housing Society had already been passed on similar facts, and the matter was pending before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. Citing T. Srinivas v. Srija Construction, the Commission emphasized that parallel proceedings on the same issue in different forums are not permissible, as this could lead to judicial contradictions. The provision in Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act allows additional remedies but does not permit simultaneous proceedings. Regarding the developer's absence before the District Commission, the Commission found valid reasons for non-appearance due to renovation and relocation of the District Commission's office. In the interest of justice, the ex-parte order was set aside. The State Commission allowed the appeal and the order of the District Commission was overturned.

Case Title: Philips Cooperative Group Housing Society (Regd No.1024) Vs Mr.D.S. Kundu

Case Number: F.A. No. 100/2020

Click Here To Read/Download The Order