Chandigarh

DF-II

EA/54/2023

DEV RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, PUDA, BDA THROUGH ESTATE OFFICER - Opp.Party(s)

SAHIL GARG

16 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Execution Application No.54/2023

In

Consumer Complaint No.	:	970/2021
Date of Institution	:	12.06.2023
Date of Decision	:	16.04.2024

 

                     

            

 

Sh. Dev Raj S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Ram, aged about 70 years, Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & Resident of H.No.1212, Sector 15, Panchkula.

…. Decree holder/Complainant

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority/BDA (Bathinda Development Authority), PUDA Complex, Bhagu road, Bathinda through its Estate Officer..

….Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Sahil Garg, Counsel of DH (through VC) Sh.Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Counsel of JD.

   

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The present execution application under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has filed by the Decree holder/Complainant for compliance of the order dated 14.09.2022 passed this Commission. Subsequently, the said order was modified by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 29.08.2023 in the following terms:-

“16.     For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order of the District Commission is modified to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 10% p.a. to 9% p.a. in the manner that the appellant/opposite party is now directed as under:-

(i)  to refund to the respondent/complainant an amount of Rs.15,20,140/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. (instead of 10% p.a.) from the respective dates of deposit till its payment;

(ii)     to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent/ complainant towards compensation for causing him immense mental agony and harassment, alongwith litigation costs of Rs.20,000/-.

(iii)     This order shall be complied with by the appellant/opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it (appellant/opposite party) shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.35,000/- apart from the above awarded amount.”

2.     The Counsel for the JDs has submitted that the order under execution has been fully complied with and as such the execution application be dismissed.
3.     We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents available on file.
4.     The Hon'ble State Commission vide order dated 30.10.2023 disposed of the Miscellaneous Application No. MA/770/2023 in Appeal No.126/2023 by observing that  both the Counsel for the parties have agreed that out of the deposited amount of Rs.26,02,061/- i.e. (Rs.12,87,292.00 + Rs.13,14,769.00) lying deposited with Commission in FDR, an amount of Rs.25,03,995/- alongwith accrued interest thereupon in FDR be released in favour of the applicant/complainant and an amount of Rs.98,066/- alongwith accrued interest thereupon in FDR be released in favour of the appellant/opposite parties without prejudice to right of the applicant/complainant in the pending execution application before this Commission.
5.     The Counsel for the parties have filed their respective calculations sheets. 
6.     It is observed from the calculation sheet filed by the Counsel for the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has calculated the interest on the decreetal amount till 11.05.2023 and 28.06.2023 i.e. when the judgment debtor have deposited the amount with the Hon'ble State Commission. On the other hand, the Counsel for the decree holder has calculated the interest on the decreetal amount till 30.10.2023 when the same was released by the Hon'ble State Commission to the decree holder.
7.     Now the only question to be determined by this Commission is whether the decree holder is entitled to the interest on the decreetal amount till the date of deposit of the amount by the judgment debtor in the Hon'ble State Commission or till the date, it is paid to the decree holder?
8.     In order to find out the answer to this question, the following facts and circumstances of the case are necessary to be discussed.  It is observed that once the judgment debtor had deposited the decreetal amount with the Hon'ble State Commission, then he has discharged his liability towards the decree holder.  After the deposit of the said amount, it is the duty of the decree holder to file an appropriate application with the Commission to get released the deposited amount along with the interest, if any. We do not find any fault with the judgment debtor because once he had deposited the amount with the Commission to be paid to the decree holder in the event of the success to the litigation, the decree holder cannot take benefit of his own fault in not filing the appropriate application and receiving the amount from the Commission.  The judgment debtor cannot be waxed time and again for no fault on his part because he had already deposited the money with the Commission and departed with the amount. Therefore, it is observed that the interest on the amount is to be calculated till the date the amount is deposited with the Hon'ble State Commission i.e. 11.05.2023 and 28.06.2023  not 30.10.2023 as calculated by the decree holder.
9.     If we hold that the decree holder is entitled to receive the interest despite deposit of amount by the judgment debtor with the concerned Commission then it will set a bad precedent because in order to get more interest for a longer period the decree would not move application before the concerned Commission for the release of the amount in his favour.
10.     Moreover, we do not have any golden scales to measure the exact calculation as there always remain some difference of amount due to time taken in the procedure of getting the FDRs released in favour of the decree holder/complainant and as such the strict calculation could not prevail in such events.
11.     For the reasons mentioned above, the order under execution application, modified by the Hon'ble State Commission vide its order dated 29.08.2023 stands fully complied with. The execution application is dismissed accordingly.
12.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 16.04.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER