Haryana

StateCommission

A/128/2015

ALPINE SURGICAL AND PHARMACEUTICALS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRTIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP.LTD. AND ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

YOGEDER MOHAN

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.128 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 06.02.2015

Date of Decision: 08.03.2017

 

1. Alpine Surgical and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Plot No.11, Sector-3, Growth Centre, Bawal through its Managing Director.
2. Alpine Surgical and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited through its Managing Director, Shri M.M.Bhasin S/o Shri A.R. Bhasin presently at R/o # G-16, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. (Alternative address).

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

1.      Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited C-13 and 14, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Assistant General Manager.

2.      Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited C-13 and 14, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Assistant General Manager.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    None for the appellants.

                   Mr.B.S.Negi, Advocate for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.01.2015 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (In  Short “District Forum”) vide which appellant has been directed to handover possession of the property in question and to submit allotment letter to O.Ps. and to refund Rs.45,000/- as mentioned above therein. 

2.      Vide consumer complaint No.312 of 2004 appellant challenged resolution/cancellation of plot in question, which was allowed vide order dated 01.07.2005 and District Forum directed as under:-

                   “i)      To issue order of restoration of Plot No.11, Sector 3, Growth Center, Bawal.

                   ii)       to adjust the amount of Rs.45,000/- if charged in excess in future installments, if due and if the complainant has already cleared his account then that be refunded to the complainant.

                   iii)      Also pay Rs.1000/- as cost of proceedings.”

3.      Thereafter, respondents/O.Ps. filed appeal No.104 of 2006 against that order.  In the meantime during execution proceedings plot was handed over to appellant and Rs.45,000/- were refunded because there was no stay order.  Vide order dated 17.08.2011 appeal was allowed and complaint was dismissed.

4.      Thereafter O.Ps.-respondents filed an application to restore possession and for refund of amount already paid to appellant.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum  allowed the request of O.Ps. vide impugned order dated 01.01.2015 and directed as under:-

                   “i)      To hand over the possession to the applicants/Ops.

ii)       To tender/submit the allotment letter to the applicants/O.Ps.

iii)      To refund the amount of Rs.45,000/- to the applicants/O.Ps.”

6.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainants have preferred this appeal.

7.                None has appeared on behalf of appellants since last two consecutive hearings. It is already 3.00 P.M.  The matter pertains to year 2015.  So, there is no necessity to wait any more time and arguments of only respondent’s counsel are heard. File perused.

8.                It is not disputed that order due to which plot in question was restored and Rs.45,000/- were paid to complainant is set aside. When that order is set aside complainant cannot retain the possession of the plot in question.

9.                It is settled proposition of law that it is a duty of the court to put a party in position in which one would have been, if impugned order had not been passed as provided under section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (In short “C.P.C.”). The complainants were not entitled to said amount which was paid pursuant to orders passed by Fora.  Therefore, to put the parties in the same position, complainants are liable to return plot and amount. Reference to this effect can be made to opinion of Hon’ble  Punjab and Haryana High Court expressed in State of Punjab Vs. Kartar Singh, AIR 1986 PH 312. Relevant portion is 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.”

10.    In view of these observations we are of view that appeal has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

March 08th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 S.K.