STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(1)

Charanjit Singh (deceased) through its Legal representatives : Karanvir Singh son of late Sh. Charanjit Singh, r/o Village Kumbra, Sector 68, Mohali.

…… Petitioner

V e r s u s

The Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Chairman

              ....Respondent

(2)

Smt. Sushil Syan d/o Sh. Vir Singh Syan r/o H.No.02, Sector 20-A, Chandigrah.

…… Petitioner

V e r s u s

The Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Chairman

              ....Respondent

(3)

Brijinder s/o Sh. Ram Sarup r/o H.No.1256, Phase 9, Mohali.

…… Petitioner

V e r s u s

The Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Chairman.

              ....Respondent

Revision Petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Ram Sarup Dhanda, Adv. for the revision petitioner

                   Sh. Vikas Jain, Adv. for the respondent

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                   By this order we propose to dispose of the above mentioned three revision petitions, involving common questions of law and fact.

2.                     These revision petitions are filed against the order dated 10.10.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the execution applications filed by the DH/petitioner, were dismissed as fully satisfied.

3.                     The facts, in brief, are that the complainant initially filed a consumer complaint which was allowed by the ld. District Forum vide its orders dated 22.12.2003 alongwith a bunch of such cases.  The Chandigarh Housing Board (respondent herein) challenged the said orders by way of appeals before this Commission, which were dismissed vide order dated 29.3.2005.  Thereafter the respondent filed revision petitions before the Hon’ble National Commission which were dismissed vide order dated 12.7.2007 with costs of Rs.3,500/- to each of the contesting respondent No.1/complainant.  Aggrieved against the orders of the Hon’ble National Commission, the respondent filed Civil Appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which were also dismissed vide order dated 22.9.2010 with litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants.

4.                     Thereafter the complainants filed execution petitions before the ld. District Forum in which the OP/respondent paid Rs.25,000/- but delinked to pay Rs.3,500/- alleging that due to doctrine of merger, they were liable to pay only Rs.25,000/- and the execution application was accordingly dismissed as fully satisfied vide the impugned orders, referred to above.  The complainants have challenged the same through these revisions.

5.                     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 

6.                     Admittedly, the Hon’ble National Commission decided the revision petitions filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board vide their orders dated 12.7.2007 and awarded costs of Rs.3,500/- to the complainant. The Chandigarh Housing Board challenged the said decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the Civil Appeals were dismissed vide orders dated 22.9.2010 reported as Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Avtar Singh & Ors.-JT 2010 (10) SC 360 and awarded costs of Rs.25,000/- to each of the complainants.  The contention of the ld. Counsel for the respondent/OP is that by doctrine of merger, the amount of Rs.3,500/- awarded by the Hon’ble National Commission  stood enhanced to and merged in Rs.25,000/-, which amount has already been paid by them and, therefore, they are not liable to pay Rs.3,500/- separately on the ground that the said amount was awarded by the Hon’ble National Commission.  In support of his contention the ld. Counsel cited the case of Chandi Prasad Vs. Jagdish Prasad-2004 (8) SCC 724, Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala-2000 (6) SCC 359 and Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur & Ors. Vs. The Lao and Asstt. Commisioner & Anr.-2004 (4) ICC 26.  There is no dispute about the principle of law laid down in these authorities.  The doctrine of merger, however, applies to the substantive relief awarded by a Court or a Tribunal and not to litigation costs which are separately awarded by each Court or Tribunal for the expenses incurred by a litigant to pursue or defend the lis.  There cannot be any doctrine of merger with respect to costs awarded by a lower Court unless the higher Court specifically rules about the same by enhancing or reducing the litigation costs awarded by the lower Court or making any explicit order that the costs awarded by it are for pursuing the case before the lower Court/Fora also.  In the present case, there is no direction either to increase the litigation costs, awarded by the Hon’ble National Commission, or to merge the said costs in the costs awarded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, nor has it been mentioned that these are the “litigation costs throughout” the litigation. The Hon’ble National Commission has, therefore, awarded the costs of Rs.3,500/- in favour of the complainant for the expenses incurred by him before the Hon’ble National Commission whereas the costs of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for pursuing the SLP/Civil Appeal before it by the complainant.  The doctrine of merger does not apply in the present case and the OP/respondent was liable to pay the costs of Rs.3,500/- awarded by the Hon’ble National Commission as well as the costs of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7.                     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the orders dated 10.10.2011 passed by the ld. District Forum cannot sustain. The present revision petitions are accordingly accepted and the impugned order dated 10.10.2011 is set aside with Rs.5,000/- as costs  in each case.  The ld. District Forum is directed to proceed further to recover the amount from the OP in accordance with law.  

                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

06.02.2012

USTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg