BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER

For the Appellant         Mr Prabhat Ranjan, Drouhn Garg and Mr Ashray

                                Bhatia, Advocates       

For the Respondent      Mr Amarjeet Singh, Advocate for R 1

                                Proforma Party – R 2 to 5      

ORDER

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.      This appeal execution under Section 27A the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) is directed against the order dated 16.10.2020 and 21.05.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (in short, “State Commission”) in Miscellaneous Application (MA) no. 68 of 2020 and 323 of 2021 in Execution Application No. 301 of 2019 arising from Consumer Complaint No. 912 of 2016.

2.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3.     The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent stepped in to the shoes of one Rajesh Kumar Garg who was the original allottee of independent floor no. DVF-B1/26-GF in the appellant’s project DLF Valley, Panchkula (per allotment letter dated 03.04.2010) vide Agreement to Sale dated 11.05.2012 and Transfer Letter dated 09.01.2013 confirming the transfer. Appellant offered possession vide letter dated 26.10.2016 based on Occupation Certificate dated 02.05.2016. Respondent filed Consumer Complaint No. 912 of 2016 before the State Commission which was disposed on contest on 23.03.2017 directing refund of Rs 42,84,947/- with interest @ 15% p.a. within 45 days along with Rs 1,25,000/-as compensation for agony and harassment and litigation costs of Rs 35,000/-. Appellant filed FA No. 943 of 2017 before this Commission which was allowed on 03.06.2019 in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda, (2010) 16 SCC 318. Respondent then filed EA No. 301 of 2019 before the State Commission which was disposed of on 22.08.2019 as appellant paid Rs 6,77,475/- by Demand Draft dated 16.08.2019.

4.      Respondent thereafter filed MA No. 68 of 2020 seeking revival of the EA 301/2019 on the basis of a fresh calculation. On 08.10.2020 appellant paid Rs 5,68,182/- vide DD dated 22.08.2020 in terms of order dated 03.06.2019 in FA 943/2017. The MA was disposed of directing payment of interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 09.01.2013 (date of transfer) instead of from 02.11.2014 as directed by this Commission in FA 943/2017.

5.      Respondent thereafter filed MA 323 of 2021 seeking penal action against appellants for non-compliance. The same was stayed by this Commission in appeal. The impugned orders of the State Commission are challenged in this Appeal Execution on the ground that the decree dated 03.06.2019 stood satisfied in terms of the judgment in DS Dhanda (supra). It is also contended that the State Commission erred in allowing the Execution Application against respondents 2-4 who were proforma parties.  

6.      From the foregoing it is evident that First Appeal No. 943 of 2017 in this case was disposed of in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DS Dhanda (supra) vide order dated 10.05.2019. In this matter, there were two categories of petitioners who were either seeking possession of the flats with compensation or refund with compensation. In its judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court had issued specific directions, in both cases of possession and refund. In so far as the issue of refund of the deposited amounts to a person who acquired rights on transfer of allotment from an original allottee was concerned, the directions read as under:

23. We find that the grant of interest at the rate of 15% by SCDRC is highly excessive. Since in other two set of appeals decided earlier, this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of refund, therefore, the order of SCDRC stand modified so as to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

24. However, in case any transfer of the flat, such interest will be payable from the date of expiry of three years from the date of agreement or from the date of transfer whichever is later.

25. The costs of Rs. 35,000/- imposed by the SCDRC is maintained.

[Emphasis supplied]

7.     The limited issue in this Appeal Execution is whether the compensation by way of interest is payable from 09.01.2013, the date of transfer when the respondent stepped in to the shoes of the original allottee, or from 02.11.2014 when, in terms of the judgment in DS Dhanda (supra) the period of 3 months ended. Respondent has relied on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd Vs. Himanshu Arora & Anr., CA No. 11097 of 2018 dated 19.11.2018 and DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd Vs. Sushila Devi & Anr., CA No. 2285-2330 of 2019 dated 26.02.2019 to contend that the interest as compensation should be reckoned from the date of deposits.

8.      Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the records, we are not persuaded by the contentions on behalf of the respondent. The judgment in FA 943 of 2017 was clearly in terms of the ratio laid down in DS Dhanda (supra), which, as extracted above, is specific in holding that the period for the compensation would count from the date of transfer or three years after the date of the Agreement, whichever is later. Disturbing this position in execution proceedings would amount to going behind the decree, which is not permissible at this stage. 

9.      In view of the foregoing, this First Appeal is liable to succeed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 

 10.   In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of with this order.