Chandigarh

StateCommission

EA/168/2019

Saveena Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Singh Rana & K.L. Saini Adv.

18 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Execution Application No.	:	168 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	15.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	18.08.2022

 

 

 

 

 

1]      Mrs. Saveena Goel wife of Rakesh Goel, resident of House No.148/11, Tarana Hill, Mandi-175001, Himachal Pradesh, India.

2]      Mr. Rakesh Goel son of Suresh Kumar Goel, resident of House No.148/11, Tarana Hill, Mandi-175001, Himachal Pradesh, India.

……Decree Holders/Complainants.

Versus

1]      DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative (Rakesh Kerwell).

2]     DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway-8, Gurgaon through its Managing Director (Vishal Gupta).

…..Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                  MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued  by:- 

Sh. Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the Decree Holders.

Ms. Tanika Goyal, Advocate for the Judgment Debtors.

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   Vide this execution application filed under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the decree holders have sought compliance of order dated 31.03.2017 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.790 of 2016, whereby this Commission ordered refund of Rs.51,79,611/- along with interest @13% pa. from the respective dates of deposits till realization besides awarding an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.35,000/- towards compensation and litigation costs. The said order was challenged by the Judgment Debtors – DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi by filing First Appeal No.1010 of 2017, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 10.07.2019 in terms of directions contained in Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order dated 10.05.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.4910-4941 / 2019 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 3623-3654 of 2019) DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.  vs. D. S. Dhanda, etc. etc. and Civil Appeal Nos. 4942-4945 of 2019 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 4363-4366 of 2019) DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sudesh Goyal, etc.

[2]               It is on record and in compliance to interim order dated 12.07.2017 passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the aforesaid FA/1010/2017, the Judgment Debtors had deposited the entire principal amount of Rs.51,79,611/- with this Commission on 31.08.2017 by moving MA/912/2017 which was kept in the shape of Fixed Deposit Receipt. It is also not disputed that the said amount of Rs.51,79,611/- alongwith interest accrued thereupon in Fixed Deposit Receipt was released in favour of the decree holders vide order dated 17.06.2019. Thus, the decree holders received total amount of Rs.56,49,928/- from this Commission vide Demand Draft bearing No.229135 dated 25.06.2019 on 28.06.2019 against proper receipt.

[3]               Ld. Counsel for the decree holders argued that as per the fresh calculation filed by the decree holders, an amount of Rs.3,33,546/- still remains payable by the Judgment Debtors.

[4]               On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Judgment Debtors while relying upon their calculation, Annexure OP-6, contended that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case  D. S. Dhanda (supra), the judgment debtors were to refund the principal amount of Rs.51,7,611/- and further pay an amount of Rs.19,41,555/- towards interest @9% p.a. on the principal amount from the respective dates of deposit till 31.08.2017, the date of deposit of the principal amount with this Commission besides payment of Rs.35,000/ as litigation charges. She submitted that the principal amount has already been released by this Commission to the decree holders alongwith interest accrued thereupon in the FDR. She further contended that litigation cost of Rs.35,000/- was also paid by the judgment debtors to the decree holders. She further contended that the Hon’ble National Commission decided the appeal on 10.07.2019 and thus, in view of D.S. Dhanda case (supra), the judgment debtors handed over a demand draft bearing No.520494 dated 26.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.19,83,564/- to Ld. Counsel for the decree holders, as recorded in order dated 03.09.2019. She further contended that the judgment debtors further paid an amount of Rs.3,60,579/- vide two demand drafts bearing Nos.521170 & 521171 dated 25.10.2019 for Rs.1,95,145.50 each to the Ld. Counsel for the decree holders which included the amount of TDS of Rs.29,712/-. This fact was duly recorded by this Commission in order dated 07.11.2019. Contending that total amount of Rs.80,23,783/- has been paid to the decree holders, she submitted that rather an amount of Rs.8,67,617/- is recoverable from the decree holders.

[5]               We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

[6]               The dispute between the parties is with regard to the period up-to which interest on the deposited amount is to be paid in terms of order of Hon’ble Apex Court. To settle the controversy at rest, it is important to refer to the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 10.05.2019 in case D. S. Dhanda (supra). Para 23 of the said order, being relevant, is extracted below:-

“23. We find that the grant of interest at the rate of 15% by SCDRC is highly excessive. Since in other two set of appeals decided earlier, this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of refund, therefore, the order of SCDRC stand modified so as to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.”

 

[7]               The present case pertains to refund of the amount paid and as such, the decree holders are entitled to get refund of the entire amount paid by them along with interest @9% p.a. from the dates of respective deposits till the date of its refund.  In the instant case, the principal amount, which was deposited by the judgment debtors with this Commission on 31.08.2017, in pursuance to interim order dated 12.07.2017, already stood released in favour of the decree holders vide order dated 17.06.2019. Thus, they received total amount of Rs.56,49,928/- from this Commission vide Demand Draft dated 25.06.2019 and also the interest @9% p.a., calculated on the principal amount from the respective dates of deposit till 31.08.2017 has also been paid by the judgment debtors to the decree holders. Once the principal amount stood deposited with this Commission on 31.08.2017, the decree holders would not be entitled to any further interest on the said principal amount as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India, Appeal (Civil) 4570 of 2006 decided on 19.10.2006. Thus, we find nothing wrong in the contention raised by the judgment debtors and their calculation calculating interest up-to 22.12.2017 is correct.

[8]               For the reasons recorded above, we do find any merit in the claim raised by the decree holders to the extent of Rs.3,33,546/- vide their calculation placed on record and as such, this execution application is dismissed having been fully satisfied in terms of order of Hon’ble Apex Court in case D. S. Dhanda (supra).

[9]               Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

18.08.2022

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

Ad