STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Revision Petition No. 02 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 30.03.2012 | Date of Decision | | 03.09.2012 |
Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Secretary. ……Petitioner. VERSUS 1. Smt. Meena wife of Sh. M.L. Sanghi, resident of House No.63, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh. 2. Silverton Cooperative House Building Society Limited, SCO No.21, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh through its President. 3. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sector 17, U.T., Chandigarh. .... Respondents. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER Argued by:Sh.K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. S. S. Khetarpal, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Sh. Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for respondent No.3. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 1. This is a revision petition, filed by Chandigarh Housing Board (Opposite Party No.1), against the order dated 17.02.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Execution Application No.77 of 2010 titled as ‘Smt. Meena Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board and others’. 2. The facts, in brief are that Smt. Meena filed a Consumer Complaint No.408 of 2002, before the District Forum, which was allowed vide order dated 4.2.2004 passed in Complaint Case No.407 of 2002 titled “S. R. Kainth Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board etc.” as a result whereof, Chandigarh Housing Board was directed to refund an amount of Rs.29,800/- along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit i.e.24.04.1999 till the date of its refund. The complainant (respondent No.1 in the present revision petition), was also awarded Rs.500/- as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with, by the Chandigarh Housing Board, within two months, from the date of receipt of its certified copy. 3. Against the said order of the District Forum, Chandigarh Housing Board preferred an appeal before this Commission bearing No.146 of 2004, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Chandigarh Housing Board preferred a Revision, before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, bearing No.1671 of 2005, which was also dismissed with cost of Rs.3,500/- against it, vide order dated 12.07.2007. Vide the said order, a bunch of other Revision Petitions involving similar controversy, was also disposed of by the Hon’ble National Commission. 4. Aggrieved against the said order of the National Commission dated 12.7.2007, Chandigarh Housing Board preferred a number of Special Leave Petition, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeals No.8203 of 2010, arising out of S.L.P (C) No.21740 of 2010 and other Civil Appeals arising out of various S.L.Ps, including the one filed in this case, with costs of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants. 5. Consequent upon dismissal of the Civil Appeals arising out of the S.L.Ps by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the complainant/decree holder filed execution application before the District Forum, which was decided vide order dated 17.02.2012 in the following manner; “We, therefore, order that besides Rs.91,792/-, OP No.1/JD shall continue pay interest @8% per annum on Rs.29,800/- calculated from 24.04.1999 till the date of actual payment. It is, therefore, directed that a certificate under Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be sent to the concerned District Collector along with copy of this order, authorizing him to recover the amount from JD/Chandigarh Housing Board. Now for awaiting the report of the District Collector, to come up on 02.04.2012.” 6. Aggrieved against the order dated 17.02.2012, the present Revision Petition, was filed by Chandigarh Housing Board. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. The Counsel for the revisionist submitted that Chandigarh Housing Board refunded the entire amount qua all the members, who sought refund of the deposited amount, to the Society (respondent No.2), amounting to Rs.6,55,183/- on 25.01.2011, out of which a sum of Rs.78,947/- was the share of the complainant/respondent No.1/decree holder. He further submitted that the District Forum, wrongly relied upon the affidavit dated 03.11.2010, furnished by the complainant, to the effect that, no amount had been received by her, and directed Chandigarh Housing Board to pay an amount of Rs.91,792/- along with interest @8% per annum till realization of the said amount, despite the fact that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, did not provide for payment of such interest. He further submitted that the Executing Court could not go beyond the judgment/decree and therefore, there was no occasion for it, to direct Chandigarh Housing Board, to again pay the said amount with interest, till the date of its payment. He further submitted that in the present case, the principle of “Doctrine of Merger” was fully applicable, as it was the judgment of the final Court, which was to be complied with and the orders passed by the Courts below, merged with the order passed by the final Court. He further submitted that, on the very first day, before the District Forum, in execution proceedings, the District Forum was informed by Chandigarh Housing Board that it had already paid the amount to the Society and copy of the letter, to this effect, was also placed, on record, but still, on the very next day i.e.22.03.2011, cost of Rs.2,000/- was imposed. 9. He further submitted that the Counsel for Chandigarh Housing Board moved an application dated 06.04.2011 before the District Forum, alongwith a copy of the order, showing the payment of amount to respondent No.1 and prayed for recalling of the order. However, the said application was dismissed by the District Forum. The Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the moment, some amount is paid, the interest will cease to operate, but the District Forum failed to appreciate the legal position on the matter. In support of his contention, he cited the case of Chandi Prasad Vs. Jagdish Prasad – 2004 (8) SCC 724, Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – 2000 (6) SCC 259 and Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur & Ors. Vs. The Lao and Asstt. Commissioner & Anr. – 2004 (4) ICC 26. 10. The Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant admitted that the complainant had already received the amount of Rs.78,947/- i.e. (Rs.29,800+Rs.24,147+Rs.25,000) on 31.01.2011, whereas the amount of interest calculated at the rate of 8% per annum for the period 24.04.1999 to 31.01.2011 i.e. 11 years 7 months & 7 days, came to be Rs.27,641/-; (as per the calculation sheet at running page 183 of District Forum’s file), furnished by her. He further submitted that Chandigarh Housing Board had refunded a sum of Rs.24,147/- against the aforesaid due amount of interest of Rs.27,641/- and hence, a sum of Rs.3,494/- was still short of the due amount and Chandigarh Housing Board was liable to pay the same. He further submitted that Chandigarh Housing Board was also liable to pay Rs.500/- as costs awarded by the District Forum, in the consumer complaint, Rs.3,500/- as costs awarded by the National Commission in the Revision Petition and Rs.2,000/- as costs awarded in the Execution Application for non compliance of the order fully. He further submitted that the principle of “Doctrine of Merger” did not apply to the costs awarded by each Fora/Court separately. 11. The interest @8% P.A. on Rs.29,800/-, from 24.04.1999 to 31.01.2011, as awarded by the Foras came to be Rs.27,641/-, whereas, Chandigarh Housing Board only paid a sum of Rs.24,147/- as interest. Thus, it paid short amount of Rs.3,494/- on account of interest. Thus, the Revision Petitioner is liable to pay Rs.3,494/- as interest, indicated above, to respondent No.1/complainant. 12. It may be stated here, that the Doctrine of Merger is not applicable to the costs awarded by each Fora/Court separately. Such costs are awarded by each Fora/Court, to reimburse the Opposite Party for the expenses, incurred by it, for defending the litigation at each level of the hierarchy of Foras/Courts, for being unnecessarily dragged into the same. The Doctrine of Merger is only applicable to the substantive relief. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner from the cases relied upon by him, in this regard. The submission of the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, in this regard being devoid of merit, is rejected. 13. The cost of Rs.2,000/- was imposed by the District Forum in the Execution Application, as the entire amount due to the Decree Holder, had not been paid by the Judgment Debtor by that time. Therefore, for not complying with the orders of the Foras/Courts, fully, imposition of cost of Rs.2,000/- could not be said to be unjustified. 14. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 15. In view of the above, the present revision petition, is partly accepted with no order as to costs; and the order impugned dated 17.02.2012 is modified and the Revision Petitioner is directed, as under: - (i) to pay an amount of Rs.3,494/- (less paid) as interest, as indicated in Para No.11 of this order; (ii) to pay a further sum of Rs.6,000/- as costs i.e.( Rs.500/- imposed by the District Forum in consumer complaint, Rs.3,500/- imposed by the National Commission plus Rs.2,000/- imposed in the Execution Application); 16. The order be complied with within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the District Forum shall be at liberty to execute the order, according to law. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 12.09.2012. 18. The District Forum record alongwith the certified copy of the order be sent, so as to reach there, well before the date fixed. 19. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of charge. Pronounced. 3rd September, 2012. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD)] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad
STATE COMMISSION (REVISION PETITION NO.02 OF 2012) Argued by:Sh. K. K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. S. S. Khetarpal, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Sh. Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for respondent No.3. Date the 3rd day of September, 2012. ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the revision petition has been partly accepted, with no orders as to costs, and the order of the District Forum has been modified, as per directions. (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
