Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S. Mega City Builders Represented By ... vs 1.S.I. Sawhney And Another on 29 April, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2013 AP 7
Author: G. Rohini
Bench: G. Rohini
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND
W.P.No.5478 of 2008
Dated 29-4-2013
M/s. Mega City Builders represented by its partner M.Mallikarjuna Reddy
..Petitioner
Vs.
1.S.I. Sawhney and another
..Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri P.Shiv Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.2 : G.P.for Civil Supplies
<Gist:
>Head Note
?case referred:
1 AIR 1987 SC 2055
2 (2007) 7 SCC 71
3 (2003) 2 SCC 412
4 (2000) 2 SCC 536
5 (2001) 8 SCC 397
6 AIR 1999 SC 3609
7 AIR 1988 SC 94
8 (2006) 3 SCC 354
9 AIR 1955 SC 84
10 (1989) 2 SCC 557
ORDER:
The respondent in Consumer Dispute No.1520/1998 before the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the order dt. 17-1-2008 in R.P.No.153/2007 on the file of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission").
The case has a chequered history which we would like to refer to before we delve on to the real controversy.
FACTS:-
The writ petitioner who was a builder, undertook to develop and construct residential flats in the premises bearing Municipal Door No.1-2-412/5, Valmiki Nagar, Domalguda. The respondent herein was a tenant in the said building. On 29-9-1995, the writ petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) with the owners to develop the same into flats. It is stated that on 21-8-1996, the writ petitioner entered into another MOU with the respondent herein requesting him to vacate the premises on condition of providing a three bed room flat on the south east corner of the first floor of the building admeasuring 1294 sq.feet at Rs.2 lakhs. Agreeing to the terms of the agreement, the respondent claims to have vacated the said premises.
In the year 1998 the respondent filed CD No.1520/1998 in the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad (for short, 'District Forum') seeking registration and delivery of possession of flat and compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony which he has undergone due to non-compliance of the agreement by the writ petitioner. By order dt. 17-8-2000, the District Forum allowed CD holding that there was deficiency in service by the opposite party ie., the writ petitioner herein. The District Forum also directed the writ petitioner to execute and register conveyance deed and deliver possession of South East corner flat of the first floor of the building in Valmikinagar, Domalguda, Hyderabad, within three months of payment/deposit of Rs.2 lakhs with necessary registration expenses by the complainant. The District Forum also directed the writ petitioner to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month from 5-5-1999 towards rent till the date of delivery of possession of the flat apart from costs of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed FA No.58/2001 before the State Commission which was dismissed on 21-3-2001 confirming the findings of the District Forum. Questioning the judgment of the State Commission, the writ petitioner preferred RP No.920/2001 before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "the National Commission") and the said revision petition was also dismissed on 23-5-2001.
While things stood thus, the respondent herein/complainant initiated penal proceedings by filing PP No.22/2001 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") before the District Forum. The District Forum after conducting a detailed enquiry allowed said petition on 22-10-2002 sentencing the respondent therein i.e., the writ petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the said order. The said order was challenged by the respondent herein before the State Commission by filing RP No.188/2002. The State Commission by its order dt. 11-12-2002 while setting aside the order of the District Forum, convicted the writ petitioner and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for two years in default of execution of sale deed within one month.
As against the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.278/2003 before this Court. By order dated 16-10-2003, a Division Bench of this Court held that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to consider the question as to whether the punishment awarded by the District Forum was appropriate or not and therefore the State Commission ought not to have interfered with the discretion exercised by the District Forum. However, taking note of the statement made in open court that the writ petitioner is ready and willing to pay Rs.13 lakhs apart from Rs.2 lakhs already deposited, this Court suggested a compromise. Negotiations took place between the writ petitioner and the respondent. Though the same did not fructify, since the writ petitioner voluntarily expressed his willingness to pay the said amount to the respondent, this Court directed the writ petitioner to deposit the said amount of Rs.13 lakhs in the District Forum in full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the respondent within two months from that day and that the same was permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent herein observing that since this Court is not only a Court of Law but also a Court of Equity, the said order is passed invoking the equitable jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the Division Bench set aside the order of the State Commission, dated 11.12.2002. In pursuance thereof, the writ petitioner deposited Rs.13 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent in compliance with the order of this Court. However the respondent herein did not withdraw the same, but filed Civil Appeal No.1578/2005 before the Honourable Supreme Court challenging the order of this Court in W.P.No.278 of 2003. The said appeal was disposed of by the Apex Court by order dated 7.3.2005 which reads as under:
"Counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dt.16th October, 2003 and 11th December, 2002 respectively may be set aside.
Reserving to the appellant the right to move under Section 25 of the Act, counsel for the respondent states that it will have no objection to the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad being set-aside, since the respondent itself had challenged the jurisdiction of the State Commission. Consequently, the order passed by the High Court may also be set aside.
If we set-aside these two orders, the result will be that the order passed by the District Forum would revive and the appellant will have a right to move an application under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act. The parties have understood the consequences clearly.
In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court dt. 16-
10-2003 and the order of the State Commission dt. 11-12- 2002 and restore the order of the District Forum dt. 22-10-2002. We further clarify that it would be open to the appellant to invoke Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act.
This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
In view of the order that we have passed, the respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by it pursuant to the order of the High Court."
(emphasis supplied) It would be appropriate to mention here that during the pendency of the above said proceedings initiated by the respondent herein under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the owner of the building filed a civil suit i.e., OS No.783/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the writ petitioner (developer) for perpetual injunction and obtained temporary injunction in IA No.523/2001 restraining the writ petitioner from transferring or alienating flats allotted to the share of the owner which included the flat in dispute. Later, the said suit was decreed granting perpetual injunction.
Pursuant to the orders of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1578/2005 holding that it would be open to the respondent herein to invoke Section 25 of the Act, the respondent herein filed EP No.6/2006 before the District Forum, Hyderabad under Section 25 of the Act and sought a direction to send the execution petition to the District Collector, Hyderabad for execution of the sale deed by the writ petitioner in respect of the flat in question. In pursuance thereof, by order dated 23-6-2006, the District Forum, Hyderabad directed the parties to get the value of the flat assessed to enable the District Collector to recover the said amount as land revenue.
Against the said order, dated 23.06.2006, the respondent filed RP No.172/2006 before the State Commission contending that O.S.No.783 of 2001 filed by the owner of the property for injunction against the writ petitioner herein was a collusive suit and therefore the decree passed in the said suit was null and void and was not binding on the District Forum and State Commission. Thus it was pleaded that notwithstanding the decree in O.S.No.783 of 2001, the writ petitioner was liable to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the flat in question in his favour. The State Commission accepted the contention of the respondent herein and accordingly allowed the Revision Petition by order dated 9.3.2007 and set aside the order of the District Forum dated 23.6.2006 in E.P.No.6 of 2006. Consequently, the writ petitioner herein was directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the flat in question within three months on payment of Rs.2 lakhs with necessary registration expenses by the respondent herein. In addition to the said direction, the State Commission directed the writ petitioner to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month from 5.5.1999 towards rent till the date of delivery of possession of the flat in question to the respondent herein. Accordingly the respondent herein filed an affidavit before the District Forum for registration of sale deed and delivery of possession. However by order dated 25.10.2007 the District Forum held that such relief cannot be granted by the Consumer Forum and thus directed the respondent herein to file an application to transfer E.P.No.6 of 2006 to an appropriate Civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed RP No.153/2007 before the State Commission. By order dated 17.1.2008 the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum dt. 25.10.2007 and directed the District Forum to take necessary steps to get the sale deed executed. Though it was contended by the writ petitioner that in view of the amendment to Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act in the year 2003 the order in favour of the decree-holder cannot be enforced by directing registration of sale deed, the State Commission did not accept the said contention and held that the law at the time of filing of CD in the year 1998 is to be followed since the amendment is of prospective effect and not retrospective. Accordingly, the District Forum was directed to take necessary steps to get the sale deed registered.
The said order of the State Commission dt. 17-1-2008 is now the subject matter of the present writ petition.
We have heard Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Sri P. Shiv Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the 2nd respondent.
Contentions:-
The learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly contends that in view of Sec. 25 of the Act as substituted by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15-3-2003, the District Forum/State Commission cannot enforce its order by sending to a competent civil Court for execution if it is not in a position to execute the same. According to the learned counsel, the only remedy available to the respondent is to seek recovery of the value of the flat in question under Revenue Recovery Act in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submits that in view of the decree for perpetual injunction passed by the Civil Court in OS No.783/2001 in respect of the suit property which has become final, the writ petitioner is not in a position to give the flat in question to the respondent herein and therefore the order of the District Forum, dt. 17.08.2000 has virtually become unenforceable.
However it is added by the learned counsel that the petitioner is willing even now to pay the amount which he has offered in the earlier round of litigation.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that his client is not willing to accept the offer made by the writ petitioner and he wants the very same flat which was promised to be given to him pursuant to MOU entered in the year 1995. He would further contend that the order of the State Commission was based on proper appreciation of material available on record and the same warrants no interference by this Court at this stage.
For proper appreciation of the controversy involved, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Legal Position:-
As per Section 24 of the Act, every order of a District Forum, State Commission or National Commission shall be final if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of the Act. Section 25 of the Act, which is akin to the Execution Proceedings, provides for enforcement of the orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission. That apart, Section 27 of the Act provides for penal proceedings whereunder a person who fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be shall be punishable with imprisonment or fine.
The law is well-settled that the power conferred under Section 27 of the Act is an addition to the power conferred on the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission under Section 25 of the Act and it is open to the complainant to invoke both the remedies even simultaneously. Section 25 of the Act initially stood as under:
"25. Enforcement of orders by the Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission- Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, in the same manner as if it were decree or order made by a court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such order to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.
(a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or
(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is situated, and thereupon, the court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution."
However, by Act 62 of 2002, Section 25 of the Act was substituted with effect from 15.3.2003 as under:
"25: Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.
(1) Where an interim order made under this Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as ihc case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.
(2) No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for more than three months at the end of which, if the non-compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
(3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the Stale Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue."
A comparison of provisions of old and new Section 25 of the Act would show that prior to substitution w.e.f. 15.3.2003 the order of the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission could be enforced in the same manner as if it were decree or order made by a civil court. Therefore, it was lawful for the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission to send their orders to the civil court having jurisdiction in the event of the inability of the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission to execute it and thereupon the Court to which the order so sent shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent for execution.
However, as per the substituted Section 25 of the Act in the event of non- compliance with an interim order of the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission, the only course available is to order attachment of the property of the person who failed to comply with such order. Such attachment shall remain in force for a period of 3 months, at the end of which if the non-compliance continues the property attached may be sold and out of the sale proceeds the damages may be awarded to the complainant by the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission. So far as recovery of amount from any person on the basis of an order passed by the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission is concerned, sub-section (3) of Section 25 provides that the person entitled to the amount may make an application and thereupon the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the District and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. Thus it is clear that Section 25 as it originally existed has undergone a complete change in entirety after its substitution by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003.
In the present case, the respondent herein had initially invoked Section 27 of the Act and filed PP No.22 of 2001 and the District Forum sentenced the writ petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The respondent carried the matter to the State Commission by filing a Revision Petition. The State Commission held that the fine of Rs.5,000/- is too lenient punishment and accordingly sentenced the writ petitioner to suffer imprisonment for two years. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.278 of 2003 and ultimately the matter went to the Apex Court. By order dated 7.3.2005 in Civil Appeal No.1578 of 2005 the Apex Court restored the order of the District Forum, dated 22.10.2002 whereunder fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. However liberty was granted to the respondent herein to invoke Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act.
In pursuance thereof, the respondent herein initiated proceedings under Section 25 of the Act and filed E.P.No.6 of 2006 in June, 2005 before the District Consumer Forum with a prayer as under:
".. .. ..to send the execution petition to the District Collector, Hyderabad for the purpose of execution thereby calling upon the judgment debtor/opposite party to execute the sale deed for the flat on the 1st floor towards south-east corner, admeasuring 1294 sq feet in premises bearing No.1-2- 412/5 just above the parking space along with one car parking space in the cellar (presently Flat No.101) and also pay the arrears of rent due and payable by the judgment debtor/opposite party at Rs.5500/- which is due and payable from 5-11-2002 till 5-6-2005 amounting to Rs.1,70,500/- failing which the Honourable Court may execute a regular sale deed in my favour and thereby giving possession to me and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."
By that date, Section 25 as substituted by Act 62 of 2002 has been in operation and therefore the District Forum by order dated 25.10.2007 held that the District Forum had no power to grant the relief sought in the execution petition and accordingly directed the respondent herein/decree-holder to file a petition to transfer to an appropriate civil court.
However, the State Commission held that the amendment vide Act 62 of 2002 is only prospective in nature and that Section 25 as it stood at the time of filing of the C.D. in the year 1998 is applicable for enforcement of the order of the District Forum.
Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon UNION OF INDIA v. C. RAMA SWAMY1, STATE OF GUJARAT v. SHAILESHBHAI MANSUKHLAL SHAH2and STATE OF KARNATAKA v. VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING COOP. SOCIETY3 in support of his submission that Section 25 as substituted by Act 62 of 2002 alone is applicable. On the other hand, Sri P. Shiv Kumar relied upon KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA4, AMBALA SARABHI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. AMRIT LAL & CO.5, MAHARAJA CHINTAMANI SARAN NATH SHAHDEO v. STATE OF BIHAR6, MOHD. SWALLEH v. III-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MEERUT7, GAMMON INDIA LIMITD v. SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY8, STATE OF PUNJAB v. MOHAR SINGH PRATAP SINGH9 and BANSIDHAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN10.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy involved, it appears to us that both the District Forum as well as the State Commission failed to understand properly the scope of Section 25 as substituted by Act 62 of 2002.
At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that the Consumer Dispute (CD No.1520 of 1998) was filed by the respondent herein in the year 1998 and the District Forum by order dated 17.8.2000 held that there was deficiency in the service by the writ petitioner herein and he was directed to execute and register a conveyance deed and deliver possession of the flat in question apart from paying compensation at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month. The order of the District Forum was ultimately confirmed by the National Commission by order dated 23.5.2001.
However, the respondent did not choose to invoke Section 25 of the Act for enforcement of the said order. Instead he filed a Penalty Petition (PP No.22 of 2001) under Section 27 of the Act. The District Consumer Forum by order dated 22.10.2002 had sentenced the writ petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. On a revision petition filed by the respondent herein, though the State Commission set aside the said order and sentenced the writ petitioner to suffer imprisonment for two years, the said order was set aside by the Supreme Court in C.A.No.1578 of 2005 by order dated 7.3.2005 and the order of the District Forum, dated 22.10.2002 was restored. However it was left open to the respondent herein to invoke Section 25 of the Act.
Thereafter, the respondent herein filed a petition under Section 25 of the Act in the month of June, 2005 and the same was numbered as E.P.No.6 of 2006. By that date, admittedly Section 25 of the Act was substituted by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003. Thus it is clear that by the date of filing of E.P. for enforcement of the order in C.D.No.1520/1998, Section 25 of the Act as it stood initially ceased to be in operation and therefore the E.P. is governed by the provisions of Section 25 as substituted by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003. It is relevant to note that the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 62 of 2002) does not contain a savings clause and there is nothing in the Amendment Act which either expressly or by necessary implication makes Section 25 as it stood prior to Amendment Act 62 of 2002 applicable to a petition filed after 15.3.2003.
In C. RAMA SWAMY'S case (1 supra), the Apex Court held:
"The effect of a rule being substituted by a new rule clearly is that the old rule, which stands substituted, can under no circumstances have any application at least from the date when it ceased to exist. With effect from 7-7-1978 a new Rule 16-A having been incorporated in the Rules it was this rule alone which was applicable when the respondent represented for alteration in the date of birth by his first representation of 4-9-1982. Reading Rule 16-A as a whole it is clear to us that it applies to all persons belonging to the All India Services who were in service and the said rule does not exclude pre-4-12- 1971 direct recruits from its application, as has been held by the Tribunal."
(para 16) We may also refer to SHAILESHBHAI MANSUKHLAL SHAH'S case (2 supra) wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the effect of substitution of Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by Act 34 of 1976 held that when a statutory provision is substituted, the new provision has to be read and construed with reference to its wording and not with reference to the wording of the old provision.
It is to be noticed that in all the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent the Courts were dealing with a situation where on repeal of a statute there was simultaneous re-enactment and therefore the question that fell for consideration was whether the substituted legislation can be held to have retrospective operation in the light of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
However, the case on hand is a simple case where Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act as it existed at the time of filing of the Complaint by the respondent herein has been substituted and a new provision has come into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003 thereby giving a go-bye to the procedure contemplated under the old provision.
As already noticed above, under the old provision the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission was empowered to enforce its order in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a Civil Court and it was open to send the order to the Civil Court having jurisdiction for execution. However under the substituted provision the only course available to the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission in the event of non-compliance of their interim orders is to order attachment of the property of the person who failed to comply with such order. So far as final orders are concerned, sub- section (3) of Section 25 provides only for recovery of the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. For the said purpose, the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission has to issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the District and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. It may be reiterated that sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 25 as substituted by Act 62 of 2002 deal with non-compliance of an interim order and sub-section (3) of Section 25 provides for enforcement of a final order. Therefore, the relief that can be granted under sub-section (3) of Section 25 in respect of final orders is only by directing recovery of the amount and nothing else. It may be true that the respondent herein filed the complaint (CD No.1520 of 1998) initially before the District Forum in the year 1998 and an order was passed directing execution and registration of conveyance deed and delivery of possession of the flat in question to the respondent herein and the same was also confirmed by the National Commission in the year 2001, much prior to substitution of Section 25 of the Act.
However, instead of seeking enforcement of the said order by invoking Section 25 of the Act, the respondent herein chose to resort to Section 27 of the Act which is a penal provision and empowers the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission to punish the defaulter with imprisonment or fine. Ultimately he filed E.P.No.6 of 2006 under Section 25 of the Act only after the substitution of Section 25 by Act 62 of 2002. Therefore, the said execution petition has to be considered only under Section 25 (3) as substituted by Act 62 of 2002.
We have already expressed above that as per Section 25 (3) as substituted by Act 62 of 2002 a final order of District Forum/State Commission/National Commission can be enforced only by recovery of the amount due in the same manner as arrears of land revenue and nothing else.
It may be true that prior to substitution of Section 25 by Act 62 of 2002 there was a possibility to send the matter to the competent Civil Court for execution in the event of the inability of the District Forum to execute it. However, the said procedure has been completely given a go-bye after 15.3.2003. The District Forum failed to take note of the effect of the substituted provision and passed the order dated 25.10.2007 erroneously directing the complainant/decree-holder/respondent herein to take steps to transfer the order of the District Forum to appropriate Civil Court for the relief sought by him in E.P.No.6 of 2006. When the complainant carried the matter to the State Commission by filing a Revision Petition, the State Commission too failed to properly appreciate the scope of Section 25 as substituted by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003 and held erroneously that the law at the time of filing of the CD should be followed. The said conclusion has no legal basis and the decision relied upon by the State Commission i.e., VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE BUILDING COOP. SOCIETY'S case (3 supra) has no application at all to the case on hand. In fact, at para-53 of the said decision it was made clear by the Apex Court that primarily the jurisdiction of the Forum/Commission under the Act is to grant damages. It was further observed:
"In the event, a complainant feels that he will have a better and effective remedy in a civil court as he may have to seek for an order of injunction, he indisputably may file a suit in an appropriate civil court or may take recourse to some other remedies as provided for in other statutes."
In the light of the legal position noticed above, it appears to us that E.P.No.6 of 2006 filed by the respondent herein under Section 25 of the Act shall be governed by the provisions of Section 25 as it stood by the date of filing of the said execution petition and the date of filing the main CD has no relevance at all.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the State Commission has committed a grave error in directing the District Forum to take necessary steps to get the sale deed registered as per the directions of the Apex Court. In fact there was no such direction at all by the Apex Court. Moreover such relief is not permissible under Section 25 (3) of the Act as it stands as on the date of filing of E.P.No.6 of 2006. As already held above, the order of the District Forum dated 25.10.2007 directing the respondent herein/decree-holder to file a petition for transfer to appropriate civil court is also not in conformity with the provisions of Section 25 (3) of the Act since the only relief that can be granted under Section 25 (3) as substituted by Act 62 of 2002 is recovery of money and for the said purpose District Forum/State Commission/National Commission may issue a certificate for the amount to which the complainant is entitled to and the Collector of the District shall proceed to recover the said amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.
For the reasons hereinbefore mentioned, the orders of both the State Commission in R.P.No.153 of 2007, dated 17.1.2008 and the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad, dated 25.10.2007 in E.P.No.6 of 2006 are hereby set aside.
We make it clear that the order of the District Forum dated 17.08.2000 in CD No.1520 of 1998 directing the writ petitioner to execute and register the conveyance deed and deliver possession of the flat in question to the respondent herein as upheld by the State Commission and the National Commission has virtually become unenforceable in view of the amendment to Section 25 of the Act by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003. Therefore, the only relief that the respondent herein can seek under Section 25 is recovery of money to which he is entitled to following the procedure prescribed under Section 25 (3) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed granting liberty to the respondent herein to take necessary steps for appropriate amendment to the prayer in E.P.No.6 of 2006. If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate relief be granted by the District Forum following due process of law. No costs.
Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
____________ G. ROHINI,J.
________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.
Dt. 29-04-2013