Do co-operative housing societies and consumer courts

Scientist/Engineer

A couple of days back there was report that a Consumer Forum in Mumbai ordered a Co-operative Housing Society to pay damages to a member for loss suffered due to leakage from an upper floor.

This is not the first time Consumer Fora and the State Consumer Commission in Maharashtra have held that Co-operative Housing Societies are “service providers”. I just failed to understand logic. A group of consumers who need accommodation for themselves come together and purchase or construct homes. After construction, flats are allotted to the individual consumer members. After the members have occupied the flats they need  common services such as waste collection, sweeping common areas and many other things. The members elect a Managing Committee from among themselves, who collect “subscripttion” from members and pay to the respective persons or agencies. Here the Society is not a service agency.

Let us consider another similar case.

A group of consumers want to purchase for themselves vegetables in bulk at the cheaper whole-sale price rather than at a higher price from the local vendor. They entrust the exercise to one among themselves. Each individual pays his share to the leader depending on what vegetables and how much quantity he wants. The leader purchases the vegetables in bulk from the whole sale market. He then distributes them among the consumers including himself and also render account to each of the members. He does not take any remuneration for himself. Is the leader a vegetable vendor, definitely not? He has no commercial interest in the transaction, he does not do the job for profit and vegetable vending is not his vocation. It is similar in the case of a Co-operative Housing Society as well.

The members of the MC are consumers themselves like the other members and they do a voluntary service. Other consumer members are also eligible to be elected as Managing Committee members. Operating the Society is not the vocation of the MC members. They have their own vocations to earn their livelihood. They find time at considerable sacrifice to serve the members without any remuneration. A Co-operative Housing Society is a body of consumers who serve themselves. Some consumer courts have held that they are service providers because they collect maintenance charges from the members. This is wrong. They collect these charges only to reimburse to outsiders who render the actual services. Under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a service rendered free of cost is not a service for the purpose of the Act. The subscripttions collected from the members are not income for the purpose of the Income Tax Act as the principle of mutuality comes into play.

In the instant case the court has asked the Society to compensate the aggrieved member. The real culprit, who is the member upstairs, is let off scot free.  If the consumer court was not competent to take to task the recalcitrant member, it should not have admitted the case saying lack of jurisdiction and advised the parties to go to competent civil court.

Now if the aggrieved member goes about repairing the leakage, he may have to enter the upper floor also. What if the upper floor member does not allow him? The consumer court will not be able to compel him as it has no jurisdiction over him. The repair work may cause damage to the upper floor also. The upper floor member may cite that as a reason. If the upper floor member should be compelled to co-operate, facing eviction otherwise, only a civil court can order that. In any case a court should not venture into something, for which it does not have powers to give full justice.

What does the Forum expect the Society to do?  The Managing Committee has neither the powers not the where-with-all to physically enter the upper flat or evict the member to carry out the work. The police will not act on their complaint. They can file a case in the Co-operative court and sit quiet allowing the case to take its own time.

Who is to pay the damages and penalty ordered by the consumer court? Is the MC members themselves to pay?  The MC will collect the amount from the Society members including the member, who is to receive the amount.

 

Appeal should be made against orders like this to the National Commission or even to the Supreme Court to decide the issue once and for all.

 
Reply   
 
ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108

INTROSPECT
1.  Society has no provisions for collecting "Subscripttion Charges".  A service cannot be subscribed, but only availed.


2.  What the Society collects is called as  "Service /Maintenance Charges".  Society is liable for payment of Service Tax, subject to various parameters.  The preamble of a Society is to provide "Common Services and Amenities".


3.  Members do not pay directly to the vendors, wherein it could be argued that they avail services directly from the vendors.  Members pay to the society and avail of the services which is provided by the Society and not by the vendors.  Availing of vendor services and them making them available to the members, is a Service-in-Mutuality.


4.  The Consumer Court is competent to initiate Criminal Proceedings as well.  The Society is very well covered under the Income Tax and liable to pay income tax, subject to various parameters.  A Society is covered under the state "Profession Tax" and is liable to pay Profession Tax, even if the Society provides mutual services among themselves.  Society is liable for VAT, Octroi, Service Tax, Sales Tax and a host of other taxes, as applicable, without any reference to "mutuality" or "cooperative" and the law does not exempt any Society, in the guise of "mutuality" or whatever.


Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
http://hemantagarwal21.blogspot.in/?view=sidebar


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 


ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108

INTROSPECT
1.  Society has no provisions for collecting "Subscripttion Charges".  A service cannot be subscribed, but only availed.


2.  What the Society collects is called as  "Service /Maintenance Charges".  Society is liable for payment of Service Tax, subject to various parameters.  The preamble of a Society is to provide "Common Services and Amenities".


3.  Members do not pay directly to the vendors, wherein it could be argued that they avail services directly from the vendors.  Members pay to the society and avail of the services which is provided by the Society and not by the vendors.  Availing of vendor services and them making them available to the members, is a Service-in-Mutuality.


4.  The Consumer Court is competent to initiate Criminal Proceedings as well.  The Society is very well covered under the Income Tax and liable to pay income tax, subject to various parameters.  A Society is covered under the state "Profession Tax" and is liable to pay Profession Tax, even if the Society provides mutual services among themselves.  Society is liable for VAT, Octroi, Service Tax, Sales Tax and a host of other taxes, as applicable, without any reference to "mutuality" or "cooperative" and the law does not exempt any Society, in the guise of "mutuality" or whatever.


Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
http://hemantagarwal21.blogspot.in/?view=sidebar


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
Scientist/Engineer

There is no use of responding this post.  You have given the above kind of views in articles as well as in response to other posts of others. You go on repeating what you say without rebutting what I said point by point.

If you have objection for the word "subscripttion", you can give some other name for the collection made from the members.

I did not say that a co-operative housing society is not covered under income-tax. Read my sentence carefully and exactly and then rebut it word by word. Do you know what is mutuality?

You rebut at least one or two of my points specifically.

 
Reply   
 
LEGAL COUNSEL

There is a confusion as to the right of remedy of a member of a cooperative society under the Consumer Protection Act; more confusion on the liability as to whether it would fall squarely on the MC Members - MC Members in most of the Housing Societies do not receive remuneration and work on honorary basis. Equally societies does not run on profit motive but on mutual interest as rightly pointed out.  However, as far as the responsibility of  the seepage, leakage and structural defects the bye laws categorically enumerates the category of leakage and who is responsible to rectify such mistakes.. Bye law 160 is reproduced for clarity;- 

The following repairs and maintenance of the property of the society shall be carried out by the society at its

costs:

 

(i) All internal roads, (ii) Compound walls, (iii) External water pipe lines, (iv) Water pumps,(v) Water storage tanks, (vi) Drainage lines, (vii) Septic tanks, (viii) Stair cases, (ix) Terrace and parapet walls, (x) Structural repairs of roofs of all flats, (xi) Stair-case lights, (xii)


Street         lights,        (xiii)        Outside         walls        of        th e

building/buildings, (xiv) All leakages of water including leakages due to rain water, and leakages due to external common pipe line and drainage line, (xv) Electric lines up to main switches in the flats (xvi) Lifts, (xvii) The damaged ceiling and plaster thereon in the top floor flats, on account of the leakage of the rain water through the terrace.(xviii) Generators,(xvix)

Security Appliances ( CC TV, Intercom, Group Mobile,


56

 

Siren Bell) (xx) Rain Water Harvesting,(xxi) Sewerage, Storm water Drain & Water Treatment Plant (xxii) Common areas not specifically allotted ,Swimming Pool, Gym, Sauna Bath, Coffee House (xxiii) Common Parking Space (xxiv) Solar and alternate energy

resources. (xxv) Garden (xxvi) Community hall


 

( b)


All the repairs, not covered by the bye-law No. 160(a) shall be carried out by the members at their cost. The

expenditure of the internal leakage due to toilet, sink

etc. should be borne by concerned flat holders, with the

consent of the society. 

 
Reply   
 

The point raised by Dr. Ramani is whether disputes between a member of a Housing Co-op.  Society against the Society represented by its Managing Committee / Governing Body fall within the ambit of the consumer fora and, if so, how?

 

To answer the issue involved requires understanding of the whole gamut of the formation and registration of the co-op. society, its aims (Memorandum and Articles of Association like a company), powers and liabilities of the governing body, etc.

 

The prime object of a Group Co-op. Housing Society is to provide houses / flats to its Members who are share-holders.  To acquire land, to appoint architects, builders, contractors, etc. to complete the project of building the houses, flats, to maintain the common services, among others, is the responsibility of the society’s governing body.  The project involves crores of rupees.  The possibility of the governing body being corrupt in building sub-standard houses / flats cannot be ruled out.  Construction and provision of houses / flats is service-oriented activity within the meaning of section 2 (o) of the C.P. Act which reads:  "service" means service of any descripttion which is made avail­able to potential users and includes, but not limited to, …..  housing construction If, as a result and consequence of sub-standard construction of a flat leading to a damage, harm, injury to another member’s flat, does it not amount to deficiency in service?  The answer to the question whether a member of a co-op. society is a consumer within the meaning of the Act can be found in the definitions of the words, “consumer” {S. 2 (d) (ii)}, “consumer dispute” {S. 2 (e)}and “person” {S. 2 (m) (iii)}.  A “person” includes a co-op. society.  Consumer dispute means a dispute where the person (a co-op. society) against whom a complaint has been made … A consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for consideration.  Payment of maintenance charges every month is a consideration.  The managing committee or the governing body who is responsible for providing the service of maintaining the sub-standard flat in good repairs to prevent damage to another flat because of its sub-standard construction, can thus be held liable under the C.P. Act.   There are decisions of the National Commission to uphold this view.

 

If Dr. Rakani is a member of the governing body of the co-op. society by any chance, she will do well to study the bye-laws of the co-op. society and the Co-operative Societies Act to understand the powers of the Managing Committee and the General Body as to how to raise funds to satisfy the award passed by the Consumer Forum and to meet such unexpected contingencies.  Let us assume for a moment that Dr. Ramani has a flat in the society which collapses (God forbid) because of sub-standard construction.  What is her position?  Does she not have any remedy against the society?  Having invested her life’s savings to own her dream house, should she stand in the street?  Definitely NOT.  Undoubtedly the C. P. Act will come to her rescue.

 

Of course, there is a provision for reference to arbitration of disputes among the members inter se and between a member and the society.  At the same time by virtue of section 3 of the Act which says “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force” the jurisdiction of the consumer courts is not barred.

 

 

The analogy made by Dr. Ramani of a co-op. society with a body of vegetable venders / buyers appears odd.

 
Reply   
 

Dr. Ramani has been misspelt inadvertently by a typographical mistake as Rakani.  Pl. forgive me and correct it.  I am sorry for the mistake.  I am 83 and has a poor eye sight.

 
Reply   
 
Scientist/Engineer

 

 

The point raised by Dr. Ramani is whether disputes between a member of a Housing Co-op.  Society against the Society represented by its Managing Committee / Governing Body fall within the ambit of the consumer fora and, if so, how?

 To answer the issue involved requires understanding of the whole gamut of the formation and registration of the co-op. society, its aims (Memorandum and Articles of Association like a company), powers and liabilities of the governing body, etc.

 The prime object of a Group Co-op. Housing Society is to provide houses / flats to its Members who are share-holders. Agreed

  To acquire land, to appoint architects, builders, contractors, etc. to complete the project of building the houses, flats, to maintain the common services, among others, is the responsibility of the society’s governing body.

 

The Model Byelaws say the following:

 

 

General Body Meeting to be the supreme authority

 

Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Byelaws of the Society, the final authority shall vest in its General Body Meeting, summoned in such manner as is specified in these byelaws.

Management of the Society to vest in the Committee.

 

The Management of the affairs of the Society shall vest in the Committee duly constituted in accordance with the provisions of Act, the Rules and the Byelaws of the Society.

 

Exercise of powers by the Committee

 

Subject to the directions given or regulation made by a meeting of the General Body of the Society the Committee shall exercise all powers expressly conferred on it and discharge all functions entrusted to it under byelaw No.137.

 

 Thus the General Body Meeting of which you are the member is the Supreme Authority and not the Managing Committee.

 Most members want a care-free life without trying to bother how the Society is run,  who runs it for them and what trouble they take to run them. For them the Secretary of the Society is the face of the Society and considers him as their land-lord or adversary, who is to be blamed for everything. They don’t want to stand for elections and take upon themselves the responsibility of running the Society. The Secretary is only a volunteer and not your paid servant.

 The project involves crores of rupees.  The possibility of the governing body being corrupt in building sub-standard houses / flats cannot be ruled out. 

 If the Governing Body is corrupt the matter should come under Criminal Law and not the Consumer Protection Law.

 Construction and provision of houses / flats is service-oriented activity within the meaning of section 2 (o) of the C.P. Act which reads:  "service" means service of any descripttion which is made avail­able to potential users and includes, but not limited to, …..  housing construction If, as a result and consequence of sub-standard construction of a flat leading to a damage, harm, injury to another member’s flat, does it not amount to deficiency in service? 

 Why did you stop Section 2(o) at housing construction? You should read the Section further but does not include any service provided free of charge or under a contract of personal service.” The Managing Committee members are volunteers and they give their service free of charge. Suppose they are paid salaries then also they are not “service providers” because their service will come under “personal service”. If the Managing Committee members are paid commission as a percentage of the cost of construction you can certainly haul them to the Consumer Court. But they are not paid commission.

 The answer to the question whether a member of a co-op. society is a consumer within the meaning of the Act can be found in the definitions of the words, “consumer” {S. 2 (d) (ii)},

 This section says “hires or avails of any services for a consideration. The MC members do not give their services for any consideration. They give for free.

 “consumer dispute” {S. 2 (e)}and “person” {S. 2 (m) (iii)}.  A “person” includes a co-op. society.  Consumer dispute means a dispute where the person (a co-op. society) against whom a complaint has been made. A consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for consideration.  Payment of maintenance charges every month is a consideration.

 Under Section 2(d) a consumer is a “person”, under Section 2(e) a service provider is a person. Now which person does Section 2(m) refer to? The word has different meanings depending upon the context. Please do not confuse.

 You are confused here on the legal meaning of the word “consideration”. The maintenance charges paid, are not considerations to the Managing Committee members. They do not take anything from that for themselves. Please see the attachment. The maintenance charges are transferred to outside service providers. The expenses incurred are shared among members. Under the Income-Tax Act the amounts paid by the Society members to the Society is not an income. Receipts from outside like bank interest only  are income. 

 The managing committee or the governing body who is responsible for providing the service of maintaining the sub-standard flat in good repairs to prevent damage to another flat because of its sub-standard construction, can thus be held liable under the C.P. Act.   

 The Managing Committee is not responsible for sub-standard construction. The builder and any agency appointed for quality control only should be held responsible for sub-standard construction. In many cases persons directly buy the flats from the builders and societies and Managing Committees come into existence only much later.

 There are decisions of the National Commission to uphold this view.

 Please give me the relevant National Commission judgments.

 If Dr. Rakani is a member of the governing body of the co-op. society by any chance, she will do well to study the bye-laws of the co-op. society and the Co-operative Societies Act to understand the powers of the Managing Committee and the General Body as to how to raise funds to satisfy the award passed by the Consumer Forum and to meet such unexpected contingencies.  Let us assume for a moment that Dr. Ramani has a flat in the society which collapses (God forbid) because of sub-standard construction.  What is her position?  Does she not have any remedy against the society?  Having invested her life’s savings to own her dream house, should she stand in the street?  Definitely NOT.  Undoubtedly the C. P. Act will come to her rescue.

  Incidentally I am “he” and not “she”. Let us not challenge each other on our knowledge of the Act, the Rules and the byelaws. Please take it from me that I have come here equipped with sufficient knowledge. You are resorting to rhetoric to picture how the Managing Committee, the demon, is throwing the poor hapless members into the street for their own enjoyment, enjoyment of what, I do not know.

Shall I give you another picture? Those who offer their services and get elected to the Managing Committee are dedicated volunteers. They have to work like other members to earn their livelihood. But still they take time off their work to serve the Society and to contend with selfish recalcitrant members. As for instance some of them make unauthorized alterations and convert their ground floor flats into shops with the connivance of the Municipality. In order to revert and restore the flat, the Secretary has to find time out of his busy schedule in his own office,  hire lawyers and go to court. He will have to go on attending hearings in the court, which can continue indefinitely with no end in sight. The lawyer goes to court because it is his profession and he earns his fees for that. The judge comes to the court and he is paid his salary. The recalcitrant member comes to court to advance his business in the unauthorized shop. The Secretary goes to court to give good living conditions to the members of his Society. He is not paid for that.

 Of course, there is a provision for reference to arbitration of disputes among the members inter se and between a member and the society.  At the same time by virtue of section 3 of the Act which says “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force” the jurisdiction of the consumer courts is not barred.

 I have not said that Consumer Protection Act cannot be applied because there are other laws.

 I only say that the provisions of the Consumer Protect Act do not apply to Managing Committee members of a Co-operative Housing Society.

 As said in the Geeta the service of the Managing Committee is like this

 ब्राह्मण्यादाया कर्माणि संगम  त्यक्तवा सुखानी य: 

लिप्यसे नस: पापेन पद्मपतरमिवांबसा

 They work for the Society without taking anything in return 

 The analogy made by Dr. Ramani of a co-op. society with a body of vegetable venders / buyers appears odd.

 I did not refer to vegetable vendors. Why do you confuse and do not apply your mind?  I compared a group of vegetable consumers to the group of Society members. In one case they want accommodation and the other they want vegetables. If you see the attachment, the parallel will be clear

 

 

 

 
Reply   
 
Scientist/Engineer

 

 

 

These are my point by  point response to what Mr. Dorai Raj says.

 The point raised by Dr. Ramani is whether disputes between a member of a Housing Co-op.  Society against the Society represented by its Managing Committee / Governing Body fall within the ambit of the consumer fora and, if so, how?

 To answer the issue involved requires understanding of the whole gamut of the formation and registration of the co-op. society, its aims (Memorandum and Articles of Association like a company), powers and liabilities of the governing body, etc.

 The prime object of a Group Co-op. Housing Society is to provide houses / flats to its Members who are share-holders. Agreed

  To acquire land, to appoint architects, builders, contractors, etc. to complete the project of building the houses, flats, to maintain the common services, among others, is the responsibility of the society’s governing body.

The Model Byelaws say the following:

General Body Meeting to be the supreme authority

 

Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Byelaws of the Society, the final authority shall vest in its General Body Meeting, summoned in such manner as is specified in these byelaws.

Management of the Society to vest in the Committee.

 

The Management of the affairs of the Society shall vest in the Committee duly constituted in accordance with the provisions of Act, the Rules and the Byelaws of the Society.

 

Exercise of powers by the Committee

 

Subject to the directions given or regulation made by a meeting of the General Body of the Society the Committee shall exercise all powers expressly conferred on it and discharge all functions entrusted to it under byelaw No.137.

 

Thus the General Body Meeting of which you are the member is the Supreme Authority and not the Managing Committee.

 Most members want a care-free life without trying to bother how the Society is run,  who runs it for them and what trouble they take to run them. For them the Secretary of the Society is the face of the Society and considers him as their land-lord or adversary, who is to be blamed for everything. They don’t want to stand for elections and take upon themselves the responsibility of running the Society. The Secretary is only a volunteer and not your paid servant.

 The project involves crores of rupees.  The possibility of the governing body being corrupt in building sub-standard houses / flats cannot be ruled out. 

 If the Governing Body is corrupt the matter should come under Criminal Law and not the Consumer Protection Law.

 Construction and provision of houses / flats is service-oriented activity within the meaning of section 2 (o) of the C.P. Act which reads:  "service" means service of any descripttion which is made avail­able to potential users and includes, but not limited to, …..  housing construction If, as a result and consequence of sub-standard construction of a flat leading to a damage, harm, injury to another member’s flat, does it not amount to deficiency in service? 

 Why did you stop Section 2(o) at housing construction? You should read the Section further but does not include any service provided free of charge or under a contract of personal service.” The Managing Committee members are volunteers and they give their service free of charge. Suppose they are paid salaries then also they are not “service providers” because their service will come under “personal service”. If the Managing Committee members are paid commission as a percentage of the cost of construction you can certainly haul them to the Consumer Court. But they are not paid commission.

 The answer to the question whether a member of a co-op. society is a consumer within the meaning of the Act can be found in the definitions of the words, “consumer” {S. 2 (d) (ii)},

 This section says “hires or avails of any services for a consideration. The MC members do not give their services for any consideration. They give for free.

 “consumer dispute” {S. 2 (e)}and “person” {S. 2 (m) (iii)}.  A “person” includes a co-op. society.  Consumer dispute means a dispute where the person (a co-op. society) against whom a complaint has been made. A consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for consideration.  Payment of maintenance charges every month is a consideration.

 Under Section 2(d) a consumer is a “person”, under Section 2(e) a service provider is a person. Now which person does Section 2(m) refer to? The word has different meanings depending upon the context. Please do not confuse.

 You are confused here on the legal meaning of the word “consideration”. The maintenance charges paid, are not considerations to the Managing Committee members. They do not take anything from that for themselves. Please see the attachment. The maintenance charges are transferred to outside service providers. The expenses incurred are shared among members. Under the Income-Tax Act the amounts paid by the Society members to the Society is not an income. Receipts from outside like bank interest only  are income. 

 The managing committee or the governing body who is responsible for providing the service of maintaining the sub-standard flat in good repairs to prevent damage to another flat because of its sub-standard construction, can thus be held liable under the C.P. Act.   

 The Managing Committee is not responsible for sub-standard construction. The builder and any agency appointed for quality control only should be held responsible for sub-standard construction. In many cases persons directly buy the flats from the builders and societies and Managing Committees come into existence only much later.

 There are decisions of the National Commission to uphold this view.

 Please give me the relevant National Commission judgments.

  If Dr. Rakani is a member of the governing body of the co-op. society by any chance, she will do well to study the bye-laws of the co-op. society and the Co-operative Societies Act to understand the powers of the Managing Committee and the General Body as to how to raise funds to satisfy the award passed by the Consumer Forum and to meet such unexpected contingencies.  Let us assume for a moment that Dr. Ramani has a flat in the society which collapses (God forbid) because of sub-standard construction.  What is her position?  Does she not have any remedy against the society?  Having invested her life’s savings to own her dream house, should she stand in the street?  Definitely NOT.  Undoubtedly the C. P. Act will come to her rescue.

  Incidentally I am “he” and not “she”. Let us not challenge each other on our knowledge of the Act, the Rules and the byelaws. Please take it from me that I have come here equipped with sufficient knowledge. You are resorting to rhetoric to picture how the Managing Committee, the demon, is throwing the poor hapless members into the street for their own enjoyment, enjoyment of what, I do not know.

Shall I give you another picture? Those who offer their services and get elected to the Managing Committee are dedicated volunteers. They have to work like other members to earn their livelihood. But still they take time off their work to serve the Society and to contend with selfish recalcitrant members. As for instance some of them make unauthorized alterations and convert their ground floor flats into shops with the connivance of the Municipality. In order to revert and restore the flat, the Secretary has to find time out of his busy schedule in his own office,  hire lawyers and go to court. He will have to go on attending hearings in the court, which can continue indefinitely with no end in sight. The lawyer goes to court because it is his profession and he earns his fees for that. The judge comes to the court and he is paid his salary. The recalcitrant member comes to court to advance his business in the unauthorized shop. The Secretary goes to court to give good living conditions to the members of his Society. He is not paid for that.

 Of course, there is a provision for reference to arbitration of disputes among the members inter se and between a member and the society.  At the same time by virtue of section 3 of the Act which says “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force” the jurisdiction of the consumer courts is not barred.

 I have not said that Consumer Protection Act cannot be applied because there are other laws.

 I only say that the provisions of the Consumer Protect Act do not apply to Managing Committee members of a Co-operative Housing Society.

 As said in the Geeta the service of the Managing Committee is like this

 ब्राह्मण्यादाया कर्माणि संगम  त्यक्तवा सुखानी य: 

लिप्यसे नस: पापेन पद्मपतरमिवांबसा

 They work for the Society without taking anything in return 

 The analogy made by Dr. Ramani of a co-op. society with a body of vegetable venders / buyers appears odd.

 I did not refer to vegetable vendors. Why do you confuse and do not apply your mind?  I compared a group of vegetable consumers to the group of Society members. In one case they want accommodation and the other they want vegetables. If you see the attachment, the parallel will be clear

 

 

 

 
Reply   
 
Scientist/Engineer

I forgot this attachment earlier.



Attached File : 141837091 the consumer group is the society.docx downloaded 179 times
 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
CrPC Course!     |    x