PER MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER Vide the present Revision Petition the Petitioner/Complainant hereinafter referred to as Complainant has challenged the order dated 12.12.2011 of the State Commission in Appeal No. 300 of 2007 filed by him against the order of the District Forum dated 14.12.2006 whereby his Complaint No. 110 of 2004 was dismissed. 2. This case has a long chequered history. HUDA had developed under a scheme some plots and had allotted it to different persons. Plot No. 472 PLA Sector Hisar measuring 126 Sq. Yds. was allotted to Mr. G.L. Garg for Rs.1,40,300/- on 06.03.1990. On 27.02.1992 this plot was sold by Sh. G.L. Garg to the Complainant. On fulfilling all the formalities by the Complainant the said plot was re-allotted to the Complainant by HUDA and a non-encumbrance certificate in favour of the Complainant was issued on 28.06.1994 wherein it was mentioned that the entire price of the plot has been paid. On 08.07.1994 the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint bearing No. 837 of 1994. This Complaint was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 27.07.1994 and as compensation interest @ 18% p.a. was awarded to the Complainant. The Respondents filed an appeal against the said order on 29.11.1995 which was dismissed. The Complainant filed an Execution Petition bearing No. 205 of 1998 for execution of the order in his Complaint No. 837 of 1994 and HUDA paid a sum of Rs.26,159.75 as an interest from the date of order till 29.02.1996. Clarification thereafter was sought by the Complainant vide its application filed on 05.11.1998 and this application was disposed of by the District Forum vide its order dated 03.06.1999 and it is clarified that the interest @ 18% was to be paid from the date of deposit. This order was challenged by the Respondent hereinafter referred to as HUDA stating that the rate of interest was towards higher side. Vide its order dated 15.12.2000 the State Commission reduced the interest to 12% p.a. The Complainant thereafter filed a Revision Petition before this Commission and this Commission vide its order dated 18.01.2002 awarded the interest @ 18%. Thereafter this order of the National Consumer Commission was challenged before Supreme Court by HUDA vide SLP bearing No. 15961 of 2002. The Hon’ble Supreme Court granted the stay and confined the award of interest in excess of 12% p.a. In the meanwhile, the attachment had been issued in the execution proceedings and the attached amount of Rs.2,82,376/-, was ordered to be released in favour of the Petitioner by the District Forum vide its order dated 22.11.2002. The Execution Petition was disposed of finally on 18.04.2003. This order was challenged by HUDA before State Commission who set aside the order of attachment and release of money to the Complainant, of the District Forum vide order dated 07.08.2003. Pursuant to this order of the State Commission, whereby the release of the attached amount of Rs.2,82,376/- has been declared to have been wrongly released to the Complainant, HUDA sent a letter to the Complainant asking him to refund the amount of Rs.2,82,376/- and also claimed interest on this amount. The Complainant replied the said notice and also filed the Complainant No. 110 of 2004. HUDA filed its reply before the District Forum in CC No. 110 of 2004 and after hearing the parties the Complaint was dismissed. District Forum has held as under:- 7. It is an admitted fact that Mr. Mahabir Prashad the then president, Consumer Forum, Hisar ordered for the attachment of the account of the respondents lying in Punjab & Sind Bank, Hisar and singally passed the order for payment of amount of Rs.2,82,376/-. This order was challenged by the respondents before the State Commission and the State Commission vide order dtd. 07.08.2003 accepted the Revision Petition of the respondents and order passed by Mr. Mahabir Prasad then President singally was set aside, photocopy of order dtd. 07.08.2003 has been placed on the case file. In this manner, the order of the District Forum directing the attachment of the account of the respondents lying in Punjab & Sind Bank, Hisar has been set aside. The withdrawal of the amount by the complainant under the illegal order passed by Mr. Mahabir Prasad then President also becomes illegal. After carefully perusing the records available on the case file, we are of the considered view that the act of the respondents in serving notices upon the complainant under Section 17(1) of the HUDA Act is legal and there is no illegality in it which tantamount of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. 8. So, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Therefore, there is no merit in this complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with the direction that the complainant is liable to refund the amount of Rs.2,82,376/- which he has illegally withdrawn from the bank account of the respondents under the ilelgla order along-with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of withdrawal i.e. from 22.11.2002 till the date of payment. But at the same time he can file fresh application before this Forum by filing correct calculation taking into consideration the order passed by the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission in the previous case but the amount already taken illegally from the bank must be refunded by the complainant to the respondents along-with interest as directed above within two months and the resumption proceedings initiated by the respondents HUDA shall remain in abeyance for these two months.” 3. This order was impugned by the Complainant before the State Commission in his Appeal No. 300 of 2007. The State Commission after hearing the parties and perusing the record had dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no ground to interfere. This order is impugned before me. In the present Revision Petition it is argued by the Complainant that in terms of order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 6036 of 2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2004, HUDA could not have claimed back the said amount as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that HUDA cannot claim any refund and, therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the HUDA by issuing the notice dated 10.11.2003 seeking refund of sum of Rs.2,82,376/-. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of HUDA submits that there is no illegality in issuing the letter asking refund of Rs.2,82,376/- amount since it has been issued on the basis of the order of the State Commission wherein the State Commission had clearly observed that release of the amount of Rs.2,82,376/- to the Complainant was illegal on the part of the District Forum. It is submitted that, therefore, no deficiency has been committed by HUDA. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. Admittedly, in the Execution Petition in execution of an order passed in the earlier complaint of the Complainant, as discussed in detail above, and during the pendency of the SLP, an order of attachment was passed by the Single Judge of the District Forum and after the attached amount of Rs.2,82,376/- towards the recovery of the interest, was ordered to be released to the Complainant and it was so released to the Complainant on 22.11.2002. Subsequently, the said Execution Petition was dismissed by the District Forum on 18.04.2003. These orders of the District Forum were set aside in Appeal of HUDA by the State Commission. The order of the State Commission is dated 07.08.2003. The order of the State Commission dated 07.08.2003 was never challenged by the Complainant before any Authority and hence the order of the State Commission has attained finality. Since the order of the State Commission has attained finality, it was binding on the parties and HUDA had acted as per the order of the State Commission while demanding refund of the released amount of Rs.2,82,376/- and issued the demand letter dated 10.11.2003. There is no deficiency in service on the part of HUDA, therefore, findings of the Foras below suffers with no illegality. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 24.09.2004 has stated that the amount paid by the Appellant i.e. Rs.2,86,909/- shall not be refunded and, therefore, the issuance of demand notice amounts to deficiency in service. It is apparent that the demand notice was issued on 10.11.2003 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP had come on 24.09.2004. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “In this case possession was offered on 29th November, 1994 and taken in 1994. The Appellants have also paid a sum of Rs.2,86,909/- to the Respondent on 19th April, 1996. In our view this is much more then what we would have directed the Appellants to pay. However, for reasons set out in Balbir Singh’s case (supra) the Appellants cannot claim any refund. We thus see no reason to interfere.” 6. From the above it is apparent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with t he payment of an amount of Rs.2,86,909/- which was paid to Complainant on 19.04.1996. The amount in question was released to the Complainant on 22.11.2002 and also this amount is Rs.2,82,376/- and not Rs.2,86,909/-. 7. In view of the above it is apparent that there is no merit in the present Revision Petition. Impugned order does not suffer with any illegality or infirmity. The present Revision Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. |
