Properties, Homes & more

<< Government came to the rescue of CHS members

In the new amendment in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act Clause, the onus of the co-operative housing society (CHS) lies on the secretary. Every committee member is required to execute an indemnity bond within 15 days of taking charge of the office. The committee members are also accountable to the residents and it’s time they pulled up their socks…

Although the judgement gives a strong message to office-bearers of housing societies, many believe it is sketchy. How many times will you keep filing a case for minor issues? In the earlier case, the problem of the lady was that she got no response to her letter from the secretary. Slapping a fine of Rs. 7,000 does not solve the problem. Instead of approaching the court, one should first treat the problem within the byelaws or go to the registrar, try other alternatives, not to forget the RTI act and also give the committee members’ equal chance to justify themselves.

One has to understand that the very concept of a co-operative society is to come together and work for the betterment of the society, says consumer advocate Anand Patwardhan. “If the secretary has not replied, the message is clear and there are thousands of letters that keep coming. By writing a letter one does not become a consumer, so where is the question of deficiency of service? This is hampering individual liberty. And considering the fact that the secretary is not even paid for the work he does, slapping him with a fine is not justified.”

The housing society committee members work on an honorary basis. If you are not comfortable with the work of any committee member, you have the option of passing a vote of ‘no confidence’ against them. The society is like a family where people stay together. There are various ways to put a check on the actions of the committee members but it is definitely not a commercial venture to ask damages. It is important to see things with a wider perspective.

The order may have got a mixed response but it has managed to ruffle some feathers, bringing respite for residents of co-operative societies and also striking a warning bell for the committee members with regards to their duties and responsibilities.

This could bring a ray of hope for numerous residents who have been struggling to get a proper response for their grievances from the office-bearers of co-operative housing societies (CHS). The committee members of a cooperative housing society (CHS) are accountable to the residents. The CHS secretary may now end up paying through his nose for any poor service rendered to the residents.

According to the new amendment in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act Clause 73 (1 AB), the onus of the housing society lies on the secretary. Section 73 of the Act also states that every member is required to execute an indemnity bond within 15 days of taking charge of the office, acceptance of which makes the committee members accountable for all actions taken on behalf of the society.

In the recent case of senior citizen Madhuri Gujar, the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum slapped the secretary of Chandra Bhuvan Cooperative Housing Society with a fine of Rs. 7000 for not replying to her letter asking for the nomination of an associate membership and deemed it as ‘a deficiency of service and negligence of duty’ under the Consumer Protection Act 2005.

According to the byelaws of the cooperative society, the secretary and the committee members are liable to perform their duties in good faith. Giving her reaction, Manjushri Patwardhan, panel auditor for Maharashtra state, Raigad division says, “There are many cases where the housing society committee members don’t perform their duties on time and harass the residents. It is good that the court is finally taking some action to redress the grievances of the residents instead of turning a blind eye and giving dates every time. Bringing along a monetary fine will ensure the secretary doesn’t get away and does his duty on time or exerts the necessary pressure on the committee members to act collectively. thereby attending to the heap of residents’ complaints that go unattended.”

In most housing societies, committee members are elected without even realising the depth of their responsibility. It is the duty of the secretary to respond to the official correspondence in time and convey his reply to the respective residents. There are cases where the secretary even refuses to acknowledge the receipt of a letter and sends it back to post. The Government is equally flippant about society matters and sometimes going through the registrar also does not yield any results because the officers keep changing.

Flip side of this judgement >>