ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed against order dated 22.07.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 21/2011 title Soma Devi vs. The Shiva Cooperative House Building Society Limited & Ors. Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Soma Devi filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties pleaded therein that Shri Surinder Nath son of Shri Gian Chand husband of complainant was founder member of opposite party No. 1 and also remained as President of society. It is pleaded that Shri Surinder Nath nominated complainant as his nominee. It is further pleaded that complainant is beneficiary and successor in interest of Shri Surinder Nath and is also member of Shiva Cooperative House Building Society. It is further pleaded that Surinder Nath died in the year 1998. It is pleaded that after the death of Shri Surinder Nath complainant became member of society as per provisions of Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act and Rules. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 1 already received sum of Rs. 85000/-(Eighty five thousand). It is further pleaded that in the year 2009 complainant came to know that opposite party No. 1 started construction on the plots. It is further pleaded that complainant was informed that she was not member of Shiva Cooperative House Building Society and no plot was allotted to complainant. It is further pleaded that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society informed complainant vide letter dated 22.01.2010 that membership of Shri Surinder Nath was ceased w.e.f. 25.10.2005. It is further pleaded that complainant pleaded the matter before Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society Una for redressal of her grievance. It is further pleaded that Smt. Gurdeep Kaur inspector inquired into the matter and submitted report to opposite party No. 2 on dated 19.05.2010. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 2 did not take any action on the report and it is further pleaded that complainant sought report under Right to Information Act. Complainant sought relief to restore the membership of complainant and deliver vacant possession of the plot to the complainant. Complainant also sought relief of Rs. 700000/-(Seven lac) on account of deficiency in service. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 pleaded therein that District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further pleaded that complaint is barred under H.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Complainant also sought relief of Rs. 700000/-(Seven lac) on account of deficiency in service. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 pleaded therein that District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further pleaded that complaint is barred under H.P. Cooperative Societies Act. It is further pleaded that matter pleaded in the complaint is still pending before the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Una and it is further pleaded that complaint is barred by law of limitation. It is admitted that Shri Surinder Nath was founder President of Shiva Cooperative House Building Society. It is admitted that Rs. 85000/- (Eighty five thousand) was received by society as plot money in the name of Shri Surinder Nath. It is pleaded that death of Surinder Nath came to the knowledge of society in the year 2002. It is further pleaded that thereafter registered letters were issued to make payment of Rs. 24076/- (Twenty four thousand seventy six) but complainant or any legal-heirs of Surinder Nath did not pay due amount. It is further pleaded that General House took the decision on 18.09.2005that in case due payment would not be paid within one month then member would be deemed to be expelled from society and amount already paid would be deemed to be forfeited as per byelaws of society. It is pleaded that out of the amount of Rs. 24076/-(Twenty four thousand seventy six) only sum of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) was deposited on 28.09.2005. It is pleaded that even after the payment of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) complainant remained defaulter and was deemed to be expelled from the membership of society in view of the decision of General House of society dated 18.09.2005. It is pleaded that complainant could file representation before Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Una against the decision of General House of society within 60 days but complainant did not file any representation and remained silent till 2010. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 1 received letter No. 1972 dated 07.07.2010 from opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that thereafter meeting of General House was called on 05.09.2010 and General House reiterated its earlier decision dated 18.09.2005. It is pleaded that complainant did not file application for transfer of membership of her husband. It is pleaded that project was delayed due to non-payment of amounts by the members. It is further pleaded that thereafter meeting of General House was called on 05.09.2010 and General House reiterated its earlier decision dated 18.09.2005. It is pleaded that complainant did not file application for transfer of membership of her husband. It is pleaded that project was delayed due to non-payment of amounts by the members. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Per contra separate reply filed on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 & 3. It is pleaded that complaint is not maintainable against opposite parties No. 2 & 3. It is further pleaded that amount was paid by complainant to opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 is liable for allotment of plot to complainant or to refund the amount already received by opposite party No. 1. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 2 is not responsible for allotment of plot and payment of amount. It is pleaded that husband of complainant was member of opposite party No. 1 Shiva Cooperative House Building Society and present matter can be settled under H.P. Cooperative Societies Act. It is further pleaded that District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 2 appointed Smt. Gurdeep Kaur inspector Cooperative Societies to conduct the inquiry and it is pleaded that Smt. Gurdeep Kaur inspector conducted the inquiry and submitted report that opposite party No. 1 has resolved in General House on dated 18.09.2005that complainant would pay Rs. 24076/-(Twenty four thousand seventy six) within one month otherwise membership would be deemed to be cancelled and amount already paid by complainant would be forfeited. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 1 received sum of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) on 28.09.2005 from complainant. It is further pleaded that on the basis of the inquiry report opposite party No. 2 issued necessary directions to the President of opposite party No. 1 on dated 07.07.2010 and 11.08.2011 to convene meeting of special General House of society and again discuss matter and to take decision afresh. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 1 informed opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 11.09.2010 that matter was discussed in the General House and General House had expressed his inability to change his earlier decision dated 18.09.2005. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 5. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 1 informed opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 11.09.2010 that matter was discussed in the General House and General House had expressed his inability to change his earlier decision dated 18.09.2005. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 5. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party No. 1 to restore the membership of complainant as existed on 18.09.2005 with all rights. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party No. 1 either to allot the plot if available to the complainant against the money deposited by her or her husband with society failing which to refund the entire amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 18.09.2005 within a period of thirty days. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party No. 1 would pay punitive compensation of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand) to complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party No. 1 would pay costs to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) as litigation costs. 6. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum appellant filed present appeal before State Commission. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 8. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 9. Complainant Smt. Soma Devi filed affidavit annexure C-12 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that Shri Surinder Nath s/o Shri Gian Chand was husband of complainant and was founder of Shiva Cooperative House Building Society. There is further recital in the affidavit that husband of deponent remained President of society. There is further recital in the affidavit that Shri Surinder Nath had nominated deponent as his nominee and there is further recital in the affidavit that deponent is beneficiary and successor in interest of Shri Surinder Nath. There is further recital in the affidavit that Shri Surinder Nath died in the year 1998. There is further recital in the affidavit that after the death of Shri Surinder Nath deponent became member of society. There is further recital in the affidavit that amount of Rs. 85000/- (Eight five thousand) was deposited by deceased with opposite party No. 1. There is further recital in the affidavit that Shri Surinder Nath died in the year 1998. There is further recital in the affidavit that after the death of Shri Surinder Nath deponent became member of society. There is further recital in the affidavit that amount of Rs. 85000/- (Eight five thousand) was deposited by deceased with opposite party No. 1. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 1 did not allot plot to deponent. There is further recital in the affidavit that thereafter deponent was informed that deponent is not member of Shiva Cooperative House Building Society. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent was informed that membership of Surinder Nath was ceased w.e.f. 25.10.2005. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent pleaded the matter before opposite party No. 2 for redressal of her grievance and opposite party No. 2 conducted inquiry through inspector Smt. Gurdeep Kaur who submitted report on dated 19.05.2010 annexure C-2. There is further recital in the affidavit that inspector Gurdeep Kaur concluded that resolution dated 18.09.2005 of opposite party No. 1 vide which membership of Surinder Nath was cancelled was not correct. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 1 accepted Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) from deponent after passing resolution hence expulsion was illegal. There is further recital in the affidavit that on dated 22.12.2010 complainant came to know about expulsion. There is further recital in the affidavit that deceased person could not be expelled from membership. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 1 received Rs. 85000/- (Eighty five thousand) as advance amount. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No. 1 has no legal right to forfeit the deposited amount. 10. Opposite party No. 1 filed affidavit of Mr. M.R. Sharma President Shiva Cooperative Society in evidence. There is recital in the evidence that Shri Surinder Nath was founder President of Shiva Cooperative Society. There is further recital in the affidavit that death of Surinder Nath was not in the knowledge of deponent till 2002. There is further recital in the affidavit that society has received Rs. 85000/- (Eight five thousand) as advanced consideration amount from deceased Surinder Nath. There is further recital in the affidavit that after the death of Surinder Nath society started correspondence with complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that society has received Rs. 85000/- (Eight five thousand) as advanced consideration amount from deceased Surinder Nath. There is further recital in the affidavit that after the death of Surinder Nath society started correspondence with complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that registered letters dated 05.07.2005 and 30.08.2005 were issued for the payment of Rs. 24076/- (Twenty four thousand seventy six) to complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant or any other legal-heirs of Shri Surinder Nath did not pay the amount due. There is further recital in the affidavit that society took decision on dated 18.09.2005that if amount would not be paid within one month from the receipt of registered letter then the membership would be deemed to be cancelled and amount already paid would be deemed to be forfeited. There is further recital in the affidavit that thereafter amount of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) was paid on dated 28.09.2005. There is further recital in the affidavit that even till date complainant is defaulter. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent received letter No. 1972 dated 07.07.2010 from opposite party No. 2 with the direction to call meeting of General House and to take decision afresh. There is further recital in the affidavit that meeting of General House was called and earlier decision was retained by the General House. 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that matter relating to Cooperative Society cannot be decided by Consumer Forum and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is not barred by provisions of Cooperative Society Act in view of section 3 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is well settled law that remedy under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is additional remedy. See 2003 (1) CPR 40 NC M.D. Orissa Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd. vs. K.S. Sudarsan. See 2004 (1) CPC 681 Chhattisgarh Lakshi Chauhan & Ors. vs. Durg Jila Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Anr . It is well settled that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide consumer complaint regarding housing construction. Even as per section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 service means service of any description which is made available to potential users relating to housing construction. vs. Durg Jila Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit & Anr . It is well settled that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide consumer complaint regarding housing construction. Even as per section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 service means service of any description which is made available to potential users relating to housing construction. Section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 was amended w.e.f. 18.06.1993 and housing construction was included under the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that complainant namely Soma Devi widow of Shri Surinder Nath did not approach appellant society for transfer of membership and also did not deposit due amount and on this ground appeal be allowed is also decided accordingly. State Commission has also perused existing bylaws of Shiva Cooperative House Building Society annexure C-11 placed on record. There is recital in the bylaws that on the death of member of society the society would transfer the share or interest of the deceased member to a person or persons nominated in accordance with rules. Complainant has specifically stated that she was nominated by deceased Surinder Nath. Shiva Cooperative House Building Society did not file any counter affidavit on record in order to prove that Surinder Nath did not nominate Soma Devi as his nominee after his death. It is also proved on record that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society has issued several letters to Soma Devi demanding due amounts. Hence it is held that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society is estopped from pleading that Smt. Soma Devi was not member of Society. Even it is proved on record that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society has received Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) from complainant as outstanding amount and it is held that after receiving Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) from Soma Devi Shiva Cooperative House Building Society cannot be allowed to approbate or reprobate at the same time. See AIR 1993 SC 352 title R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir. Even in version Shiva Cooperative House Building Society has admitted that death of Surinder Nath came to the knowledge of society in the year 2002. State Commission is of the opinion that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society vide resolution dated 18.09.2005 expelled Surinder Nath dead person. It is well settled law that dead person cannot be expelled by Shiva Cooperative House Building Society as per law. State Commission is of the opinion that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society vide resolution dated 18.09.2005 expelled Surinder Nath dead person. It is well settled law that dead person cannot be expelled by Shiva Cooperative House Building Society as per law. As per law only living person could be expelled. Hence resolution expelling Surinder Nath dead person on dated 18.09.2005 by Shiva Cooperative House Building Society is ipso-facto illegal and contrary to law. There is no resolution of Shiva Cooperative House Building Society expelling membership of Soma Devi. Even as per bylaws of society nominee of deceased would automatically become member of society. 13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that claim of complainant was barred by limitation is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that complainant filed representation before Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies against the act and conduct of Shiva Cooperative House Building Society and it is also proved on record that Gurdeep Kaur inspector was ordered to inquire matter. It is proved on record that Smt. Gurdeep Kaur submitted inquiry report annexure C-2 placed on record wherein Gurdeep Kaur inspector Cooperative Societies has specifically mentioned in a positive manner that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society had received a sum of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) from complainant and matter be again referred to Shiva Cooperative House Building Society for reconsideration. It is proved on record that thereafter again matter was reconsidered on 05.09.2010 by Shiva Cooperative House Building Society and earlier decision dated 18.09.2005 was reiterated. State Commission is of the opinion that cause of action to Smt. Soma Devi was continuous cause of action till 05.09.2010 and present complaint was filed by complainant before learned District Forum on dated 23.02.2011 within two years after the continuous cause of action which accrued till 05.09.2010. It is held that complaint filed by Soma Devi is within limitation as prescribed under Consumer Protection Act 1986 from last date of continuous cause of action. 14. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum did not properly appreciate the evidence placed on record and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is held that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society is performing work of housing construction. 14. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum did not properly appreciate the evidence placed on record and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is held that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society is performing work of housing construction. It is held that society was under legal obligation to fix the schedule of payment of installments and Shiva Cooperative House Building Society was under legal obligation to fix the date of completion of construction and Shiva Cooperative House Building Society was also under legal obligation to publish approved site-plan of construction and Shiva Cooperative House Building Society was also under legal obligation to fix the amount payable by allottee. Society was also under legal obligation to fix date of delivery of possession of flat. In the absence of aforesaid facts cited supra it is held that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society has committed deficiency in service. It is held that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society cannot unilaterally impose any demand upon allottee without express and implied consent of allotee. It is held that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society was also under legal obligation to execute written agreement with the allottee qua terms & conditions of housing construction but there is no evidence on record in order to prove that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society has executed any written agreement with allottee qua terms and conditions of housing construction. It is well settled law that Shiva Cooperative House Building Society cannot be allowed to work arbitrarily and cannot be allowed to impose unilateral conditions for its own benefit. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 15. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is dismissed and order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.