State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramesh Kumar vs Atam Nagar Cooperative House Building ... on 9 December, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
(1) First Appeal No.781 of 2015
Date of institution : 21.07.2015
Date of decision : 09.12.2015
Ramesh Kumar Bector son of Banarsi Dass, resident of 20-C,
Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Atam Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., 180,
Atam Nagar, Ludhiana, through its President.
2. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its
Chairman/Administrator.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
(2) First Appeal No.782 of 2015
Date of institution : 21.07.2015
Date of decision : 09.12.2015
Sanjay Bector son of Ramesh Kumar Bector, resident of 20-C,
Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Atam Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., 180,
Atam Nagar, Ludhiana, through its President.
2. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its
Chairman/Administrator.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
(3) First Appeal No.783 of 2015
Date of institution : 21.07.2015
Date of decision : 09.12.2015
Usha Bector wife of Ramesh Kumar Bector, resident of 20-C,
Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.
First Appeal No.781 of 2015 2
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Atam Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., 180,
Atam Nagar, Ludhiana, through its President.
2. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its
Chairman/Administrator.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
(4) First Appeal No.810 of 2015
Date of institution : 24.07.2015
Date of decision : 09.12.2015
Sat Paul Sachdeva son of Karam Chand Sachdeva, resident of
965/1, Gali No.7, Deep Nagar, Ludhiana.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Atam Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., 180,
Atam Nagar, Ludhiana, through its President.
2. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, through its
Chairman/Administrator.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the orders dated
27.05.2015 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Namit Gautam, Advocate For respondent No.1: Shri Tarsem Lal, Office Secy. For respondent No.2: Shri Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parambir Singh, Advocate.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
We propose to take up and decide all the above said appeals together; as those involve similar facts and questions of law First Appeal No.781 of 2015 3 and are arising out of the orders passed on the same day in the Execution Application, which was filed for the execution of the same order, vide which the separate complaints filed by the appellants/complainants were disposed of. All these appeals have been preferred against the order of the same date passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the Execution Applications filed by the appellants/complainants were adjourned sine die and were ordered to be consigned to the record room. It is First Appeal No.781 of 2015, which is taken up first for disposal and the same decision is to follow in the other appeals.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ complainant against the order dated 27.05.2015 passed by District Forum, Ludhiana, vide which the application filed by him (E.A. No.184 of 2014) for revival of the earlier Execution Application (E.A. No.63 of 24.03.2014), for the execution of the order dated 06.01.2010 passed in C.C. No.390 of 21.05.2009, was adjourned sine die and was ordered to be consigned to the record room, on the ground that the issues interconnected with the allotment of plots to the parties were already pending before the Hon'ble National Commission and that the order to be passed by the Hon'ble National Commission was to prevail.
3. The facts, to be taken cognizance of for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant/complainant, Ramesh Kumar Bector, filed C.C. No.390 of 21.05.2009 before the District Forum; which was allowed, along with other complaints filed by Sat First Appeal No.781 of 2015 4 Paul Sachdeva and others, vide order dated 06.01.2010, and the opposite parties were directed to allot plot No.983-D, measuring 250 square yards, or alternative plot of the same size and dimensions in some other equally developed locality or colony developed by opposite party No.2 in lieu of the allotted plot, if they were unable to deliver the possession of Plot No.983-D. Against that order, First Appeal No.722 of 2010 was filed by respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 before this Commission; which was dismissed, vide order dated 25.09.2012. Revision Petition (R.P. No.3118 of 2013) was preferred against the order of this Commission before the Hon'ble National Commission; which was disposed of, along with the other Revision Petitions preferred against that order. All those Revision Petitions were dismissed, as barred by time, vide order dated 19.09.2013. Thereafter, the matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.; which was decided, vide order dated 10.10.2014. No ground was found for interfering in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Thus, the order passed by the District Forum became final. The complainant, on 24.03.2014, filed application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), with the prayer that for non-compliance of the order, the opposite parties be proceeded against and be sent to civil imprisonment and be directed to deliver possession of Plot No.983-D, measuring 250 square yards, or to allot an alternative plot in some equally developed colony and to pay Rs.10,000/-, as litigation costs and Rs.50,000/-, as penalty. Opposite party No.2 appeared in that First Appeal No.781 of 2015 5 application and on 28.05.2014, statement was made on its behalf by Jatinder Singh, Executive Officer, that S.L.P. had been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; which was still to be listed for hearing and in case, no stay order was passed, then he would comply with the order passed in favour of the complainant. In view of that statement, the complainant agreed for the adjourning of the Execution Application sine die for the time being, with liberty to get the same revived, after the passing of the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of those statements, the Execution Application was adjourned sine die, vide order dated 28.05.2014. Vide that order, direction was also issued to Jatinder Singh, E.O., to produce copy of the stay order, if any, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on or before 31.07.2014, or in the alternative comply with the order passed by this Commission. The parties were also given liberty to get the Execution Application revived, after the passing of the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the said order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complainant filed application (E.A. No.184 of 2014) for revival of his earlier Execution Application and for directing the opposite parties to issue the allotment letter in respect of the plot, in dispute, or to allot an alternative plot. In that Execution Application, opposite party No.2 filed an application for adjourning the same sine die, till the decision of the Revision Petition Nos.3002 to 3008 of 2009 and 3217 of 2009, pending before the Hon'ble National Commission; in which order dated 08.10.2013 had been passed that if the alternative plots, as directed to be allotted to the respondents of those Revision Petitions, First Appeal No.781 of 2015 6 were available with opposite party No.2, then the same shall not be allotted, without its permission and that in view of that order, no allotment can be made by it of any available alternative plot. The District Forum continued to adjourn the proceedings repeatedly, on one ground or the other, and finally passed the aforesaid impugned order.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that once the order passed by the District Forum had become final, the same was required to be complied with by the opposite parties, who failed to do so and the District Forum committed an illegality, by adjourning the Execution Application sine die, on the ground that in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the Revision Petitions, mentioned in the application of opposite party No.2, the alternative plots to other similarly situated complainants could have been allotted, only with the permission of the Hon'ble National Commission. That order was to operate, only in the cases of those allottees, who were parties in those Revision Petitions and once the order passed in favour of the complainant had become final, the same was to be executed. Thus, the District Forum committed an illegality, by adjourning the Execution Application sine die and such an order is bound to be set aside. He prayed that the impugned order be set aside and direction be issued to the District Forum to decide the Execution Application expeditiously.
First Appeal No.781 of 2015 7
6. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the Revision Petitions, pending before it, the alternative plot can only be allotted with its permission and, as such, the District Forum did not commit any illegality, by adjourning the Execution Application sine die, for awaiting the final order in those Revision Petitions. There is no ground for setting aside that order.
7. The present case is a glaring example, in which the District Forum had thrown all the norms to the wind and violated the very spirit of the Act, which aims at timely disposal of the complaints etc. There is mandatory provision in the Act to decide the complaints within the framework of three/five months, depending upon the procedure to be followed. If such a time-frame has been laid down for the disposal of the complaints, it also requires that the Execution Applications for the execution of the orders, so passed in the complaints, should be decided expeditiously and preferably within that time-frame. The District Forum was very much justified in adjourning the first Execution Application filed by the complainant sine die, in view of the pendency of the S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; in which the order, in respect of which the Execution Application was filed, was challenged. Once the E.O. of opposite party No.2 made a statement that in case of non-grant of the stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order passed in favour of the complainant shall be complied with, the District Forum was duty bound to get that order implemented, once the S.L.P. was dismissed First Appeal No.781 of 2015 8 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the application for revival of the first Execution Application was filed, the District Forum itself passed an order on 07.10.2014, vide which the original Execution Application was restored and for compliance, the proceedings were adjourned to 27.10.2014. Opportunity was given to the opposite parties to comply with the order, but the same was not done. Rather, the above said application for stay of the Execution Application was filed on 27.11.2014. For deciding that application, the proceedings were adjourned for more than 20 times, without recording any sufficient reasons for those adjournments.
8. The question to be determined is, whether the District Forum was justified in adjourning the Execution Application sine die, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the Revision Petitions, in which the order under execution was not the subject matter? The copy of that order dated 08.10.2013 has been annexed with the appeal. The said Revision Petitions have been preferred by opposite party No.2 against the other orders and not against the order under execution. The relevant portion of that order is reproduced below:-
"We further direct that if the alternative plots, as directed to be allotted to the respondents, are available with the Improvement Trust, the same shall not be allotted, without the permission of this Commission."
This order was to operate only in the cases of those persons, who were parties in the Revision Petitions before the Hon'ble National First Appeal No.781 of 2015 9 Commission. That order was not to operate in the case of the complainant. Moreover, the only condition imposed for the allotment of the alternative plot was that the permission of the Hon'ble National Commission was to be taken before the allotment. It is not the case of opposite party No.2 that they applied for such a permission. Once, the matter has been decided upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order passed by the District Forum became final, the District Forum was to execute the same and it committed an illegality, by adjourning the Execution Application sine die, on the ground that the above said Revision Petitions were pending before the Hon'ble National Commission; in which the above said order was passed.
9. In the result, all the above noted appeals are allowed and the orders passed by the District Forum are set aside. It is directed to proceed with the Execution Applications filed by the complainants, by strictly following the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and to decide the same, within a fortnight even if it is to adjourn the proceedings on day to day basis.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 11.01.2016. Its records be returned immediately.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER December 09, 2015.
(Gurmeet S)