Complainant/appellant who is a member of respondent Housing Society was allotted one tenement/flat in their society. However, Complainant/appellant did not occupy the flat personally and gave it on Leave and Licence basis to third persons. Respondent society levied non-occupation charges on the Complainant/appellant as per bye-laws. The grievance of the Complainant is that as per the Notification issued by the Government, Society ought to have charged non-occupation charges not more than 10% of the maintenance charges excluding the corporation taxes levied on him in respect of the flat in the society. The respondent -3- society resolved the levy of these charges as per Resolution passed in General Body. According to the appellant, the society should have revised the charges w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and not w.e.f. September 2002. He raised a dispute before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society who directed the society to refund the excess amount of Rs.6481/-. As per his order, said amount was refunded by the society to the Complainant who was present in the Managing Committee meeting and accordingly, the complainant signed the voucher dated 08.04.2007. Appellant filed the complaint claiming interest on the refunded amount @ 18% p.a. with Rs.20 Lac as compensation for agony and harassment, Rs.25,000/- as costs and Rs.40,000/- which he spend on the repair of the flat. State Commission dismissed the complaint by, inter alia, on the following grounds: Besides that, since there is an order of Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, CIDCO, Navi Mumbai dated 08/02/2007, such refund is made in compliance of the said order. If it is a case of the complainant that the said order is not fully complied with by not paying interest over the -4- refunded amount, then in those circumstances, it could be a matter of execution of the order dated 08/02/2007 of the Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, CIDCO, Navi Mumbai and it can never be a case falling under deficiency in service on the part of the society within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In spite of this, this consumer complaint is filed. It may be further clarified that referring to the order dated 18/02/2007 of the Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, CIDCO, Navi Mumbai, copy of which is placed on record at complaint compilation page 82 at Exhibit B, clearly indicates that there was no order of the Assistant Registrar Co-op. Society, CIDCO, Navi Mumbai to pay any interest over an amount of `6481/-. Society was only directed to take steps to refund the said amount. Society, as earlier pointed out, accordingly, refunded the amount on 08/04/2007. Under the circumstances, the consumer complaint filed on 22/01/2010 thereafter is not only misconceived but indicates a clear exercise of abuse of process of law.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Since the appellant had taken recourse to proceed under a notified Act, the appellant should have exhausted the remedies under that Act and file an appeal claiming interest. The complaint filed by him under Consumer -5- Protection Act, 1986 was not only misconceived but an abuse to process of law. The State Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint with costs. Dismissed. ......................J ASHOK BHAN PRESIDENT ...................... VINEETA RAI MEMBER ...................... VINAY KUMAR MEMBER