DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Application No. EA 7 of 6.3.2014

                                      Decided on:        19.7.2016

M/s Surinder Kamboj and Company, H.No.C-1/2100,Gali Jattan Wali, Rajpura through its Proprietor Gurwinder Singh.   

                                                …........Applicant/Decree holder

                                      Versus

1.      The Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2.      The Director, Industries and Commerce Department, Punjab Sector-17C, Chandigarh.

                                                                   …...........Respondents/JDs

                                      Application under Section 25 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

ORDER

19.7.2016:Present: Sh.J.K.Janal, counsel for the decree holder.

                                  Sh.Pal Singh, counsel for JD No.1/GAMADA

1. The ld. counsel for the complainant/decree holder has submitted that the OP no.1 has failed to comply with the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by this Forum.He also submitted that the appeal filed by the OP no.1 was also dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission, vide order dated 29.07.2013.
2. The ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that the opposite party no.1 is required to allot the plot measuring one acre in Focal Point, Rajpura subject to the payment of the balance sale price by the decree holder/complainant under rules which were applicable in the year of 1979. As the complainant/decree holder has completed all the formalities in the year of 1979 and the allotment letter was also delivered to the Decree Holder, but as per allotment letter, the possession of plot has not been given to the Decree Holder till date without any fault of decree holder. The decree holder is ready to deposit the balance amount which was applicable in the year of 1979.He further pleaded that the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by this Forum be  executed as per the provisions of Section 25 and Section 26 of the Act.
3. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP no.1/judgment debtor no.1 objected to the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. He stated that the OP no.1/JD is ready and willing to comply with the orders of this Forum subject to the complainant fulfills the requisite formalities. The ld. counsel submitted that the JD/OP no.1 as per the directions of this Forum had paid the awarded amount of Rs.5000/- and had also issued letter of intent. The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant is required to pay the consideration amount, as till date the complainant had not even deposited any balance amount. He also pleaded that the complainant is introducing new facts, which had not been discussed and no such observation had been made by this Forum. The ld. counsel argued that the complainant had only paid Rs.1000/- in the year 1979 and thereafter no payment had been deposited by him till date towards consideration amount for the plot. He further argued that this Forum vide order dated 30.09.2009 had no where directed that the OP no.1/JD to accept the consideration amount as per the rate applicable in the year 1979.
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record alongwith the order of the Hon’ble State Commission. This Forum vide order dated 30.09.2009 had “partly accepted the complaint and direct the OP no.1 to allot the plot, subject to the payment of the balance sale price by the complainant under rules at the earliest”. Now through this execution application the complainant is claiming that this Forum had directed the OP no.1 to allot the said plot as per the rules and regulations of 1979 and also to deposit the consideration payment as per the rates applicable in the year 1979.We are of the opinion that if this Forum interprets the order dated  30.9.2009  as prayed by the complainant, it shall amount to reviewing of the final order. The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 29.07.2013 had dismissed the appeals filed by the complainant and the OP no.1.The Hon’ble State Commission had also not give any observations as to the said plot shall be allotted as per the rules and regulations of the year 1979 nor the Hon’ble State Commission had held that the payment shall be deposited as per the  rates of the year 1979. The Hon’ble Supreme court in a case titled as; Lucknow Development Authority Vs Shyam Kapoor,2013(2)CCC 209(SC), has observed in para no.11 “The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside exparte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised”.
5.  Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that it is no where mentioned in the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by this Forum, whereby the OP no.1 had been directed to allot the plot to the complainant as per the rules and regulations of the year 1979 and further to accept the payment at the rates prevailing in the year 1979.The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 29.07.2013 had also not held that the payment, rules and regulations shall be applicable of the year 1979 while dismissing both the appeals. The OP no.1/JD had issued letter of intent and it is upon the complainant to make the payment accordingly.
6. Hence in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court this Forum does not have the power to recall, set aside and review its orders. In case the submissions made by the ld. counsel of the complainant are accepted, it shall amount to recalling of the  order dated 30/09/2009.Thus the present application is  hereby dismissed.  

                                               Member                        President