Jitender Singh filed a consumer case on 19 Oct 2016 against Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/732/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Dec 2016.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.732 of 2014
Date of Institution:19.08.2014
Date of Decision : 19.10.2016
Jitender Singh son of Sh. Ram Kishan, R/o village Puthi, Tehsil Gohana, Sonepat.
…Appellant
Versus
1. Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., 1105, 11th Floor, Akashdeep building Barkhamba road, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.
2. TDI Ltd., 10 Goal Market, New Delhi-110014.
3. TDI Green Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office 8 Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.
4. TDI Green Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Sector-16, Sonepat through its Manager.
…Respondents
CORAM: Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rohit Chandel, Advocate counsel for respondent No.1, 3 & 4
Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
O R D E R
R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant filed complaint for possession of plot in question on 02.11.2011 which was allowed vide order dated 19.06.2012. Thereafter, he filed execution petition to direct opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’) to deliver possession, but, instead of delivering possession they filed an application to the effect that District Town Planner (D.T.P.) had refused to renew their license and they were not in position to deliver the possession. After hearing both the parties, Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short ‘District Forum’) passed impugned order dated 18.07.2014 which is as under:-
“Accordingly, the respondent company M/s Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. is hereby directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy thousands) for tendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and further to refund the amount of Rs.10,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual realization.”
2. Feeling aggrieved, therefrom, complainant has come to this Commission with the plea that executing court cannot go beyond the main order and is supposed to get main order executed.
3. Arguments heard. File perused.
4. From the perusal of order dated 19.06.2012, it is clear that OPs were directed to deliver possession. No alternative relief was granted to the complainant, but, instead of executing that order, learned District Forum has directed to pay compensation vide order dated 18.07.2014. It is well settled law that executing court cannot go beyond the main order. Executing court has no jurisdiction to modify the order which has attained finality. These views are fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in First Appeal No.742 of 2012 titled as “Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs. The Jaspal Kaur Sandhu 2016 (1) C.P.R. 252 and in Execution petition No.12 of 2006 titled as M/s Kundan Rice Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.” decided on 03rd November, 2006. Resultantly, impugned order dated 18.07.2014 is set aside and appeal is allowed. Learned District Forum should get order dated 19.06.2012 executed.
5. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District forum, Sonepat on 30.11.2016.
October 19th, Urvashi Agnihotri R.K. Bishnoi
2016 Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.