National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Huda & Anr. vs Avinash Kalra on 17 July, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1034 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 10/11/2009 in Appeal No. 3213/2007 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. HUDA & ANR. Through its Chief Administrator, Sector 6 Panchkula Haryana 2. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through its Estate Officer Kurukshetra Haryana ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. AVINASH KALRA Resident of House No. 322, Mohalla Khatarwara Shahbad Markanda, Tehsil Shahbad Kurukshetra Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MS. ANUBHA AGRAWAL For the Respondent : MR. SACHIN JAIN
Dated : 17 Jul 2020 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)
IA No. 402/2010 (Condonation of delay).
Delay of 30 days is condoned subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the complainant within six weeks.
REVISION PETITION NO. 1034 OF 2010 This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 10.11.2009 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 29.11.2007 against the order of the District Forum dated 20.06.2000 was dismissed solely on the ground that the order passed by the District Forum had been complied and, therefore, the appeal had become infructuous.
2. One Mohan Lal Batta was initially allotted a residential plot in Sector 1 of Shahbad vide letter dated 27.06.1991. On his request the plot was transferred to the complainant on 28.09.1992. The respondent/complainant approached the District Forum on 15.09.2006, seeking possession of the above-referred plot with all amenities and after removing a transformer as well as pole etc. from the said pole etc. from the said plot and also sought refund of some amount which he claimed to have been illegally charged from him as well as interest on the deposit made by him.
3. The consumer complaint was disposed of by the District Forum with the following order:-
"For the reasons recorded above we accept the complaint partly and direct OPs to overhaul the account of complainant by charging 10% p.a simple interest on the balance amount from 1.3.1996 to onward and refund the amount recovered excess with interest @ 10% p.a from the date of deposit till realization. We further direct OPs to pay 10% p.a. interest on the amount lying deposited with OPs from 8.3.1993 to 29.2.1996. This order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which the penal action U/S 27 of consumer protection Act will be taken. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to record after due compliance."
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal after implementing the order passed by the District Forum. The order was implemented on 02.11.2007 whereas the appeal was preferred on 29.11.2007. Execution proceedings had been initiated by the complainant against the petitioner and the Authority, therefore, implemented the said order evident from an internal letter dated 19.10.2007 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-
"It is reiterated that the complainant has since filed Execution Petition before DCDRF, Kurukshetra for executing of its order dated 20.06.2007. The same was previously fixed on 5.9.2007, 16.10.2007 and now adjourned to 2.11.2007. The forum had taken seriously why its order has not so far been executed and it has further directed that no adjournment will now be granted.
It is again requested that necessary permission to implement the order dated 20.6.2007 to DCDRF, Kurukshetra be accorded prior to next date of hearing i.e. 2.11.2007."
5. In my opinion, the State Commission was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground that the order passed by the District Forum had been implemented. The execution proceedings having been initiated by the complainant against the petitioner and the appeal before the State Commission having not been filed by that time the petitioner Authority had no option but to implement the order of the District Forum so as to avoid penal consequences which arise in case non implementation of the order of a consumer forum. In case the appeal is eventually allowed by the State Commission on merits, the petitioner may even be entitled to restoration by directing the respondent to refund the amount received from the petitioner with or without interest.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the petitioner before the State Commission is remitted back to the said Commission to decide the same on merits. If there was a delay in the institution of the appeal and an application for condonation of delay was filed, that application will be decided before taking up the appeal on merits and after hearing the respondent/complainant on that application as well. Petitioner is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as costs to the complainant within six weeks from today. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 27.08.2020. The State Commission is directed to decide the matter afresh within three months of the parties appearing before it. The revision petition stands disposed of.
It is made clear that no observation made in this order shall, in any manner, influence the decision of the State Commission.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER