Haryana

StateCommission

RP/33/2015

Estate Manager Housing Board Haryana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chander Hass Kaushik - Opp.Party(s)

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                             

Revision petition No.33 of 2015

Date of Institution: 10.04.2015      Date of Decision:10.03.2016

 

Estate Manager Housing Board Haryana, Kurukshetra. Housing Board Haryana, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Secretary.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

Chander Hass Kaushik S/o Sh.Ram Nath Kaushik R/o village Salwan, at present H.No.982, Sector-30 Urban Estate, Kurukshetra (now deceased) through his LR.

1. Sant Kumar Kaushik S/o Late Sh.Chander Hass Kaushik, R/o Kothi No.1528, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.
2. Dev Raj Kaushik S/o Late Sh.Chander Hass Kaushik, R/o Kothi No.1242, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.
3. Anand Kumar Kaushik S/o Lte Sh.Chander Hass Kaushik, Junior Librarian, Gorta College Safidon, Distt. Jind (Haryana).
4. Smt.Sharda Devi W/o Late Sh.Mange Ram, VPO Quai, Near Matalouda, Distt. Panipat, presently house No.1717, Sector-9, Urban Estate, Karnal.
5. Smt.Raj Bala W/o Sh.Santhosh Dayal Moudgil, r/o Houlli Mohalla, Safidon Distt. Jind (Haryana).

         …..Respondents

 

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-     Mr.Suresh Ahlawat Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.A.N.Manocha, Advocate counsel for the  respondents.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. This Revision petition has been filed by the Housing Board, Haryana-Opposite Party, against the order dated 23.12.2014 (wrongly mentioned as 3.12.2014) passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (in short ‘District Forum’), vide which, their execution application for the recovery of Rs.1,29,805/- including compound interest has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the complaint of Chander Hass Kaushik -complainant was partly accepted by the learned District Forum vide order dated 31.05.2000, by directing the OPs:-

“to pay a sum of Rs.75,468/- (1,15,784-11,578 (10%) + 28738/- already paid)  alongwith interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 9.8.96 i.e. Date of surrender of the plot within a period of one month of passing this order.”

3.    This order was challenged by the OP in appeal before the State Commission, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2007.    In Revision Petition before the Hon’ble National Commission, the OPs reiterated their stand, but the Hon’ble National Commission disposed of the same by issuing the following directions: -

“We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and considered the evidence on record.  It is not in dispute that the respondent had paid total amount of Rs.1,15,784/- following the allotment of the house by the petitioner/Board and that he decided to surrender the house after living in it for about 3 years, i.e. on 09.08.1996.  It is also on the record that the petitioner had agreed to return the amount paid by the respondent, but this did not mean that the interest component would also be returned. In fact, it has to be kept in mind that the respondent had lived in this house for about 3 years before deciding to surrender it and it is only fair and reasonable that he should pay the petitioner/Board rent for living in the premises.  This itself justified deduction of interest component @ 16% per annum by the petitioner/Board to be adjusted as monthly rent from the respondent for his having occupied the house for about 3 years. We do not find that the petitioner has deducted interest twice as contended by the State Commission. Rs.62,184/- was the interest component of Rs.1,15,784/- including 4 half yearly installments paid by the respondent as well as two additional instalments which he had not fully paid on the date of surrender of the house.  We therefore, cannot agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the for a below that the petitioner/Board wrongly deducted Rs.62,184/- while refunding the amount to the Respondent and, therefore, set aside these orders. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order to costs.”

4.    In compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble National Commission, the legal representatives of the complainant have made the payment of Rs.62,184/-  to the OP vide cheque No.893811, dated 19.08.2014. Since, nothing further remained to be done by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the execution application of the OP.   

5.    Undisputedly an amount of Rs.62,184/- which was to be refunded by the complainant/J.D. to the Opposite Party/Haryana Housing Board, as confirmed by Hon’ble National Commission, has been paid by the LRs of the complainant to the Housing Board.  By virtue of restitution, the question only remains that whether the complainants are liable to pay interest on the said amount and if so at what rate.

6.    It is settled proposition of law that it is a duty of the court to place a party in the position in which he would have been, if the impugned order had not been passed.  The principal amount of Rs.62,184/- has been paid.  The complainants were not entitled to the said amount and were not paid the said amount pursuant to the orders passed by the Fora.  Therefore, to put the other party in the same position, the complainants are liable to pay interest on the said amount. For authority, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble  Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab Vs. Kartar Singh-Execution first Appeal No.1374 of 1985 in which it was held as under:-

“4.     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the bar, I am of the considered opinion that the State is entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation to be recovered by it under section 144 of the code. The authorities relief upon by the learned counsel for the respondents have no applicability to the facts of the present  case.  In Birendra Nath’s case (supra), it was held that where an order for the return of costs contains no direction for the payment of interest, no interest can be realized in execution of that order and, therefore, interest in restitution under section 144 of the Code cannot be allowed though ordinarily interest is a part of the normal relief given restitution. In the present case, there was no such specific direction for the payment of the interest on refund of compensation with interest the enhanced amount of compensation, but it was a natural consequence of the order passed by this Court when the award given by the District Judge was modified in appeal. Under Section 144 of the code, the parties are to be placed in the  same position which they would have occupied but for such a decree or order and for that purpose, the court could make any orders for the payment of the interest, damages, compensation etc. which are properly consequential on such variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of the decree of order.  Thus, the payment of interest is a part of the normal relief granted under section 144 of the Code, as held in Birendra Nath’s case (supra) also. The other judgement i.e. Land Acquisition Officer’s can has absolutely no relevance.

5.      Apart from the above, the respondents have taken the benefit of the money which they have received from the State of Punjab as enhanced amount of compensation which they were not entitled to receive in view of the decree passed by this court in appeal.  Thus, having taken the benefit of amount, the same must be returned to the appellant with interest, as claimed.”

7.      Under the circumstances, we find merit in the Revision Petition filed by the Housing Board, Haryana and allow the same by setting aside the order of the learned District Forum, Kurukshetra.         

 

March 10th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.