Chandigarh

StateCommission

EA/82/2023

CHITERLEKHA JINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

RAMNIK GUPTA

15 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Execution Application No.	:	82 of 2023 in CC No.127 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	18.12.2023
Date of Decision	:	15.04.2024

1. Smt.Chiterlekha Jindal w/o Sh. G.L. Jindal, resident of House No.3141, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.
2. Mr.Rajiv Jindal son of Sh. G.L. Jindal, resident of House No.3141, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh.             

…… Decree Holders/Complainants

 

V e r s u s

1. M/s Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Limited, having its Regd. Office: 306-308, Square One, C-2, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through Mr.Sharwan Gupta, its Director. Email id:-bharat.garg@emaar.ae
2. M/s Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd., Office no.40, Central Plaza, Sector 105, Mohali-160062, through its Authorized Representative/ Authorized Signatory. Email id:-bharat.garg@emaar.ae
3. Mr.Prashant Gupta, Director, M/s Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, r/o G-1, Fine Home Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi 110092. Email id:-bharat.garg@emaar.ae
4. Mr.Hadi Mohd. Taher Badri, Director, M/s Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Email id:-bharat.garg@emaar.ae
5. Mr. Sharwan Gupta, Director, M/s Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Limited, having its Regd. Office: 306-308, Square One, C-2, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. Email id:-bharat.garg@emaar.ae

…..Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Present:-               Sh.Ramnik Gupta, Advocate for the decree holders.

                             Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the Judgment            debtors

 

RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER         

                   The only short question which  falls for consideration in this execution application is, as to whether, the decree holders are entitled to get any relief in the matter or not.  It may be stated here that it is an admitted fact that the main consumer complaint bearing no.127 of 2019 was partly accepted by this Commission vide order dated 06.01.2020, whereby, the judgment debtors were directed to refund the amount of Rs.38,21,650/- alongwith interest 10% p.a. within a period of 30 days alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“……For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs and the opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.38,21,650/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @10% p.a. (as prayed), from the respective dates of deposit onwards, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the said amount of Rs.38,21,650/- shall carry 3% penal interest i.e. 13% p.a. (10% p.a. plus (+) 3% p.a.), from the date of passing of this order, till realization.
2. To pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants; deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and also cost of litigation, in lumpsum, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, to the complainants, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

However, it is made clear that if the complainants have availed loan facility from any Bank/Financial Institution, for making payment towards price of the said plot, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainants.……”

 

2.           It is also coming out from the record that the judgment debtors preferred FA No.438 of 2020 before the Hon’ble National Commission, wherein, vide order dated 22.06.2020, the entire decreetal amount of Rs.83,18,797/- as directed by the Hon’ble National Commission stood deposited by the judgment debtors vide demand draft dated 17.07.2020 before this Commission on 27.07.2020 through M.A. No.486 of 2020.
3.           We have gone through the calculation sheet attached by the JDs and found that they have arrived at this figure of Rs.83,18,797/-, while calculating the principal amount and compensation in terms of order dated 06.01.2020 having been passed by this Commission in consumer complaint bearing no.127 of 2019,  which has attained finality. This amount has already been released to the decree holders during pendency of this execution application.
4.           However, now the decree holders are still seeking interest on the amount of Rs.83,18,797/- for the period which stood deposited with this Commission in the manner stated above. Under these circumstances, the only question which falls for consideration in this execution application is, as to whether, the decree holders are entitled to interest on the amount as awarded by this Commission from the judgment debtors or not. It may be stated here that a similar controversy has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Gurpreet Singh vs Union Of India on 19 October, 2006  (Appeal (civil) 4570 of 2006)], wherein it was held that in cases of execution of money decrees or award decrees, or rather, decrees other than mortgage decrees, interest ceases to run on the amount deposited, to the extent of the deposit. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“….20. Thus, in cases of execution of money decrees or award decrees, or rather, decrees other than mortgage decrees, interest ceases to run on the amount deposited, to the extent of the deposit. It is true that if the amount falls short, the decree holder may be entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards the interest, then towards the costs and then towards the principal amount due under the decree. But the fact remains that to the extent of the deposit, no further interest is payable thereon to the decree holder and there is no question of the decree holder claiming a re-appropriation when it is found that more amounts are due to him and the same is also deposited by the judgment debtor. In other words, the scheme does not contemplate a reopening of the satisfaction to the extent it has occurred by the deposit. No further interest would run on the sum appropriated towards the principal….”

 

5.           As far as reliance placed by the complainant on P. S. L. Ramanathan Chettiar & Ors vs O. Rm. P. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar on 4 March, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1047, 1968 SCR (3) 367, AIR 1968 SUPREME COURT 1047 is concerned, it may be stated here that in that case, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the deposit was not in terms of Order 21 rule 1 C.P.C. and' as such, there is no question of the stoppage of interest on it.  However, in the present case, notice of deposit of decreetal amount was given to the decree holder. Under these circumstances the  facts of P. S. L. Ramanathan Chettiar & Ors. being different are not applicable to the present case.
6.           As far as reliance placed by the decree holders on other judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Rajasthan High Court as well as Andhra Pradesh High Court is concerned, it may be stated here that the facts of that case being distinguishable are not applicable to the present case and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh vs Union Of India shall prevail.
7.           Under above circumstances, no doubt is left with this Commission to hold that the decree holders are not entitled to get any amount over and above the amount already received by them from the judgment debtors in the manner stated above.
8.           Under above circumstances, this execution application stands disposed of, as fully satisfied.
9.           All pending applications stand disposed of, accordingly.
10.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith
11.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

15.04.2024

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

 Rg