ORDER Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He assailed the judgment of the State Commission on three grounds: (a) The respondent is not a consumer (b) The Complaint is time-barred and (c) The Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 2. In this case Rs. 1,00,000 as equalization fee was paid by one Mr. Ramesh Chand who had given a power of attorney to the respondent Smt. Vandana Sharma while selling the flat. Mr. Ramesh Chand was a member of the Talagang Co-operative Housing Society. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that equalization fee charged rightly or wrongly cannot be come within the purview of the consumer court as the society has every right to charge such fees. 3. In this case it is not disputed that the respondent Smt. Vandana Sharma has stepped into the shoes of the original purchaser. He brought to notice Rule 10 of the earlier Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 according to which a member of the co-operative housing society ceases to be a member of the transfer of the whole of his share or interest in the society to another member. Rule 10 is quoted below. “Cessation of membership Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 27 a person shall cease to be a member of a co-operative society on his resignation from the membership thereof being accepted or on the transfer of the whole of his share or interest in the society to another member, or on his death, removal or expulsion or incurring any of the disqualifications specified in the Act and the rules. 4. When a purchaser steps into the shoes of the seller he or she will automatically become the member of the society and to mitigate the hardships of thousands of members of the cooperative housing societies who are denied membership and denied justice. Delhi Government thought it fit to repeal this Act in toto and come out with a fresh Act. 5. Delhi Government thought it fit to repeal this Act in toto and come out with a fresh Act. 5. That the Consumer Fora cannot intervene into dispute pertaining to a member of the cooperative society has been held invalid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the celebrated judgment delivered by Justice Shivraj Patil in Secretary Thirumurugan Cooperative Society v. Lalitha (dead) through LRs & Others1, wherein it has been clearly stated that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act is clear and unambiguous and shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of an law for the time being in force. The quasi-judicial forums observing the principle of a specific nature and to award, whenever appropriate compensation to the consumer and to impose penalties for non-compliance of their orders. 6. The Apex Court further observed that: “Merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the members and the management of the society under the Act and forums are provided, it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the forums under the 1986 Act expressly and intentionally to serve a definite cause in terms of the objects and reasons of the Act, reference to which is already made above.” 7. The new Act has given relief to the purchasers of the flats under GPA. Learned counsel for the petitioner was fair enough to give us a copy of Section 91 of the new Act which has a special provision for conferment of occupancy rights of person when such a right is acquired through the instrument of power of attorney or agreement for sale. The section is quoted below. “91. A member of a housing society who has sold his plot or flat on the power of attorney or agreement for sale or by sale deed shall cease to be a member of that society from the date of the sale or plot or flat: Provided that the purchaser having registered power of attorney or registered agreement for sale or registered sale deed, as the case may be in respect of such plot or flat, may apply for membership by paying transfer fee of five hundred rupees and share money and admission fee as per the provisions of the bye-laws of the society and the committee shall grant membership to the applicant within thirty days after the submission of his application. In case of refusal by the committee, the applicant may appeal to the Registrar within thirty days and the decision of the Registrar shall be final: Provided further that no purchaser shall be entitled for more than one membership in a housing society. 8. Now the issue of limitation in such cases needs to be considered. It is well-settled law that the cause of action is subsisting and is of continuous nature in such cases and the society cannot deprive the right of a consumer for refund of money wrongly collected in thee grab of equalization fee. 9. Para 5 of the District Forum’s order clearly mentions that the respondent/complainant was asked to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as equalization fee by the society which he has deposited through cheque. 10. As the powers of consumer Fora have been clearly spelt out by the judgment of the Apex Court quoted (supra), we do not see any merit in this revision petition warranting our intervention under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision petition dismissed. *******