National Consumer Disputes Redressal
U.P State Industrial Development ... vs Vinay Singhal on 3 July, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.4015 OF 2011 alongwith I.As. No.01 & 02 of 2011 (From the order dated 27.9.2011 in R.P. No.175/2011 of the State Commission, Lucknow, UP ) U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Having its Head Office A-1/4. Lakhanpur Post Box No.105, Kanpur and Regional Office at Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Through its Regional Manager Petitioner Versus Vinay Singhal C/o M/s. Singhal & Company Lok Market, Agra Road Aligarh, Regional Office at Jeevan Bhawan, Hazrat Ganj Lucknow, U.P. Through its Regional Manager Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Raina, Advocate Pronounced on : 3rd July, 2012 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as Act) by the petitioner against order dated 27.11.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short as State Commission). Vide impugned order, State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 12.8.2011, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short as District Forum) in Execution Case No.01 of 2010, whereby application of the petitioner for stay of the proceedings was rejected.
2. Brief facts are that respondent/complainant had applied for allotment of industrial plot offered by the petitioner. Accordingly, he was allotted the plot in question. It is stated by the respondent that he has made the entire consideration amount whereas, the defence of petitioner is that, respondent did not make the entire payment and a sum of Rs.24,351.50 is outstanding against him.
3. In the year 1994, respondent filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner, which was disposed of by the District Forum vide order dated 20.7.2001, directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.2,435.80 within one week with the petitioner and petitioner was to give possession of the plot, within 30 days thereof.
4. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 19.3.2009. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for recall/review of the order dated 19.3.2009. The same was dismissed by the State Commission, vide order dated 23.3.2009.
5. Thereafter, respondent filed execution petition before the District Forum to which petitioner filed its objections. The objections of petitioner were dismissed by the District Forum, vide order dated 12.8.2011, against which petitioner filed revision, which was dismissed by the State Commission, vide impugned order. This is how the matter reached before this Commission.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records.
7. State Commission in its impugned order has observed;
The revisionist has not filed the District Consumer Forums order which was sought to be executed in the aforesaid execution. However, the revisionists appeal no.2222/2001 preferred against the District Consumer Forums judgment was dismissed by this Commission on 19.3.2009. The revisionist was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the opposite party/complainant. Compliance has not yet been carried out. Two fold plea is pressed into service-one, that sale deeds are not executed in favour of the allottees and secondly the plot earlier allotted to the opposite party Sri Vinay Singhal during the pendency of this litigation has been allotted to someone else and lease deed too executed in his favour. In so far as the first limb of the argument is concerned, it may be observed that if sale deed is not executed, whatever deed was covenanted to be executed, may be written and carried out.
As regards the plea of allotment in favour of the third party it may be mentioned that such an allotment would be hit by the principle of lis pendence and apparently illegal. The argument that lease deed in favour of the third party was executed as the complainants representation pursuant to the direction of High Court in a writ petition was rejected is illogical as the High Court had not interfered with the allotment order in favour of the complainant which was not only decreed by the District Consumer Forum but also affirmed vide this Commissions judgment dated 19.3.2009 passed in appeal no.2222/2001.
Pressing now the plea of impossibility is not free from mischief as it was a disobedience of the District Consumer Forum and this Commissions judgment whereby the allotment of the plot in favour of Vinay Singhal was held to be valid and executable. The District Consumer Forums order rejecting the revisionists plea that this Commissions judgment was beyond jurisdiction, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error as the judgment of this Commission was passed on merit and in accordance with law. Mere moving of a recall application is of no consequence in so far as the validity of the judgment of this Commission is concerned.
In the result we find that this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
8. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed in the execution proceedings. As per Section 27 of the Act, only appeal shall lie against any order passed in the execution proceedings.
9. In this respect, it would be relevant to quote the provisions of Section 27A of the Act, which reads as under;
27A. Appeal against order passed under section 27 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from -
(a) the order made by the District Forum to the State Commission;
(b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and
(c) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court.
(2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission.
(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission :
Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.
10. Thus, the present revision petition against impugned order is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.
11. Now coming to the merits of this case, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent is guilty of its own wrong since he has failed to pay the outstanding premium as well as interest as per schedule.
12. Other contention made by learned counsel is that complaint of respondent is hit by Section 2(d)(i) of the Act and explanation thereto, since respondent has been allotted an industrial plot and the same is to be used for commercial purposes only and as such the present complaint under the Act is not maintainable.
13. The impugned order has been passed in the execution proceedings. It is well settled that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree/award. Now at this stage, petitioner cannot take a new plea which was not taken up by it even in its written statement filed before the District Forum.
14. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality and ambiguity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The present revision petition is meritless and has been filed just to waste time of this Commission.
15. Accordingly, we dismiss this revision petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
16. Petitioner is accordingly directed to deposit the costs by way of cross cheque for the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account within four weeks from today.
17. Pending application, if any, stands dismissed.
18. In case, costs are not deposited within the prescribed period, then petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
19. List on 31.8.2012 for compliance.
...J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER Sg.