Haryana

Karnal

EA/78/2022

Satish Kumar Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Jain

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                Execution application No.78 of 2022

                                                Date of instt.30.08.2022

                                                Date of Decision:16.10.2023

 

 

Satish Kumar Mittal son of Shri Sis Ram Mittal, resident of H.No.7, Tubewell Colony, The Mall Road, Karnal, now resident of H.No.419-P, Sector-8, Part-2, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                               …….DH/Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

 

1.     Haryana Urban Development Authority now Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula.

 

2.     Haryana Urban Development Authority, now Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran through its Estate Officer, Sector-12, Urba Estate, Karnal. 

                                                                      …..JDs/OPs

 

Execution U/s 71 for Enforcement of orders and Section 72 of Penalty for non-compliance of order under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

Present:  DH/complainant in person.

                Shri Amit Munjal, counsel for JDs.

 

                (Dr.Rekha Chaudhary, Member)

 

ORDER:  

 

                Vide this order we dispose of the execution application filed by the DH for executing the order dated 12.07.2005 passed by this Commission.

2.             Brief facts of the execution application are that this Hon’ble Commission has passed an order dated 12.07.2005 in complaint No.774 of 2003, whereby directed the OPs to deliver the possession of the plot in question to the complainant within a period of four months after completing the road falling on the eastern side of the plot and removing the safeda trees existing in the plot. The OPs was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction. The OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him.  The OPs was also directed to comply with within a period of four months of the receipt of the order. Both the parties filed appeals before the Hon’ble Sate Commission bearing No.1564/2005 dated 29.08.2005 by the OPs and appeal number No.1638/2005 on 07.09.2005, both the appeals were dismissed vide common order dated 21.12.2009.  Being aggrieved of the order dated 21.12.2009, the complainant filed revision petition NO.1368 of 2010 before the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi which was disposed of vide order dated 07.12.2010, whereby the Hon’ble National Commission was pleased to enhance the amount of compensation for the loss, injury and mental harassment caused to the complainant on account of said deficiency on the part of OP from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and rest of the stipulations shall remained unchanged. Thereafter, DH filed an execution application under Consumer Protection Act, and the said execution application was dismissed in default on 11.11.2014 on the assurance of the OPs to construct the road on the eastern side of the plot No.419P. He further submitted that the JDs are not complying the order dated 12.07.2005 intentionally and willfully even after passing of more than 17 years and becoming order final on 21.12.2009 the date of dismissal of appeal by the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission filed by the JDs as well as despite the assurance made by the JD No.2 in the application U/s 27 of the Act decided in November 2014

3.             On notice, JDs appeared and filed its objection and submitted that order dated 12.07.2005, passed by this Commission has already complied with, as such, the present execution has become “infructuous” and the same merits dismissal on this score alone. Being fully satisfied with the compliance made by the JDs, the DH did not persue his execution petition dated 10.02.2010 and the same was dismissed in default on 11.11.2014 by this Hon’ble Commission. The order dated 11.11.2014, passed by Hon’ble Commission has already attained “maturity” and as such, the same cannot be agitated again and again. In case, the DH was not satisfied with the compliance made by the department or with the order dated 11.11.2014, passed by this Commission, then the complainant would have filed a restoration application, but no such step was taken by the DH, which clearly goes to prove that the DH was fully satisfied with the order dated 12.07.2005. Hence, prayed for dismissal of execution application.

4.             DH/complainant submitted that the JDs did not comply the order passed by this Hon’ble Commission despite attaining the finality. He further submitted that several letters were written to the JDs with a request that road in the eastern side of the plot of the complainant be constructed and the road falling in the southern side be got repaired in order to prevent the damage to the foundation of the house of complainant, but despite that they did not comply the order passed by this Commission. Thus, requested for execute the order passed by this Commission and JDs/OPs may be punished as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for JDs/OPs argued that they have duly complied the order passed by this Commission as well as passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Commission and Hon’ble National Consumer Commission and nothing is due towards the DH. He further argued that the relief which has been claimed by the DH  has not been claimed by him in his entire pleadings and now at this stage, the relief claimed by him cannot be granted. He further argued that the tree which the DH wants to get removed are far away from the house of the DH, rather the same is in the land of the Forest Department, and the DH has not impleaded the Forest Department, as party being necessary party. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the execution application.  

6.             Arguments heard. Record perused.

7.             Vide order dated 12.07.2005, this Commission has passed the order which is reproduced as under:-

“The OPs shall deliver the possession of the plot in question to the complainant within a period of four months after completing the road falling on the eastern side of the plot and removing the safeda trees existing in the plot.

“The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of escalation in the cost of construction.

The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him. 

That the order shall be complied with within a period of four months of the receipt of the order.

There shall be no order as to costs.”

8.             Both the parties filed appeals before the Hon’ble Sate Commission bearing No.1564/2005 dated 29.08.2005 and appeal number No.1638/2005 on 07.09.2005, both the appeals were dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2009. From the documents placed on file, it has been proved that the order regarding payment of compensation has already been made complied with by the JDs and the only grievances of the DH is that road in the eastern side of the above plot has not been constructed and road falling in the southern side be got repaired. In order to prove the fact that the JDs have complied with the order passed by this Commission, JDs have placed on file photographs of the house of the complainant and roads. From the perusal of the photographs it is very clear that the JDs have removed the trees from the plot of the complainant and thereafter the complainant had constructed his house on the plot. From the photographs it is also proved that roads on both the sides of the house of complainant, have already been constructed.   

9.             Since, the compliance of the order has been made by the JDs and nothing remained due towards the complainant. Moreover from the photographs, it is crystal clear that the trees which the DH wants to get removed are far away from his house, rather as per the JD, the land in which the trees are standing does not belong to them, rather the land is of Forest Department. If the DH has any grudge against that trees, then he should have impleaded the Forest Department as necessary party in the complaint at the initial stage but he has not impleaded the Forest Department as party in the present complaint. Hence, the present execution application is dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.    

Announced

Dated:16.10.2023                                                                    

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member