RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Revision No.114 of 2011

Smt. Kamla Gupta w/o Late Anil Gupta,

31/70, Gali No.3, Bheekham Singh Colony,

Vishwash Nagar, Delhi.                             …… Revisionist.

Versus

Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial

Development Authority, 169, Chitvan Estate,

Sector-Gama, Greater Noida City,

District, Dautambudh Nagar, (U.P.)       ……..Opp. Party. 

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon'ble Sri Jugul Kishor, Member.

Sri S.K. Verma for the revisionst.

Sri R. Chaddha for the OP.

Date        13.1.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member.- Aggrieved by the order dated 13.4.2011, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Gautambudh Nagar in Execution Case No.92 of 2009 arising out of the complaint Case No.467 of 2008, the revisionist Smt. Kamla Gupta w/o Late Anil Gupta has preferred the instant revision under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No.68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order was  Coram non judice and was passed without any inherent jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The entire proceedings were illegal and arbitrary; and the impugned judgment was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind, simply on

(2)

the basis of surmises and conjunctures and, therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the revisionist will suffer irreparable loss.

          It has been argued that the order dated 13.4.2011 passed in Execution Case no.92 of 2009, arising out of judgment and order dated 6.7.2009 passed in complaint case no.467 of 2008 was against the record and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. The Executing Court erred in interpreting the order date 8.7.2009 and, therefore, the same is improper, unjust and factually wrong and, therefore, is not sustainable. We have heard the parties and have gone through the evidence available on record.    

          The factual matrix of the case is that the OP Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority allotted a plot of land measuring 450 Sq. metre bearing no.377, Udyog Kendra-I, Greater Noida to the husband of the revisionist Sri Anil Gupta for a sum of Rs.4,72,500.00 only. Sri Anil Gupta was required to pay the aforesaid amount with interest in 10 installments. However, Sri Gupta expired on 14.6.2001 and consequently, his widow Smt. Kamla Gupta (revisionist) applied for mutation of the property of her name in place of her deceased husband. The OP Greater Noida refused to do so on ground of arrears of installments and ultimately, issued a notice to the revisionist relating to cancellation of the plot. From perusal of the records, it further transpires that the plot in question was  ultimately  transferred in the name of revisionist on 19.9.2008. Thereafter, the OP Greater Noida issued a demand notice

(3)

of Rs.14,48,475.00 on 25.11.2008. All representations of the revisionist fell in deaf ears. Consequently, she was forced to file complaint case no.467 of 2008 before the Ld. DCDRF, NOIDA on ground of deficiency in service.

The OP/respondent filed an application before the Forum below on 3.7.2009 wherein it is submitted that it had removed all the problems of the revisionist/ complainant and, therefore, the complaint case be decided accordingly. Consequently, the complaint was decided on 8.7.2009 in the light of letter of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority dated 3.7.2009 and the Development Authority was directed to execute the lease-deed within 60 days after receiving the amount due in the light of letter dated 7.4.2003. The Forum below rejected the penal interest claimed by the Development Authority. The complainant/revisionist was directed to deposit the balance of arrears before the execution of the lease-deed. However, from perusal of the records, it further transpires that instead of complying with the orders of the Forum below, the complainant/revisionist filed Execution Case no.92 of 2009 for execution of the order dated 8.7.2009 in which inter-alia, it was argued that she was not liable to pay any interest in the light of order dated 8.7.2009 and, therefore, arrears, being claimed by the Development Authority was beyond the direction given in the judgment.  The Forum below after hearing the parties, held that the word "etc." appearing after the term "penal interest" in the operative portion of the judgment dated 8.7.2009 could not be construed as inclusive of all interest accrued due to late

(4)

payment of the Principal amount. No such prayer was made by her in the complaint case and, therefore, by means of order dated 13.4.2011, ordered that the claim of Rs.10.89,880.79 or Rs.10.,89,881.00 which was inclusive of Rs.45,230.00 was justified and thereby, directed the revisionist to deposit the balance amount of Rs.10.44.651.00 in the office of the O.P. Development Authority. The OP was directed thereafter to comply with the directions given in the complaint case no.467 of 2008 dated 8.7.2009. The aforesaid order, passed in Execution case no.92 of 2009 is based on facts, circumstances, evidence and admissions of the parties and there is no irregularity and illegality in the same. Admittedly, the complainant/revisionist did not deposit the installments in time as a result, the arrears increased due to levy of interest on the Principal amount. She is only responsible for this state of affairs.  There is no remiss, irregularity or illegality in the order. It is justified from all aspects of the matter and consequently, we are not inclined to interfere in the same. The revision, being misconceived and meritless, is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

          The revision is dismissed and the impugned order dated 13.4.2011 passed in Execution Case no.92 of 2009 is confirmed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.   

               (A.K. Bose)                            (Jugul Kishor)       

           Presiding Member                        Member

Jafri

PA II Court No.5