State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer Protection Council,, ... vs Secretary, Rourkela Development ... on 3 December, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.32 OF 2007 From an order dated 15.01.1994 passed by this Commission in C.D. Case Nos.338, 345, 346, 358 and 361 of 1992 Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela. Petitioner -Versus- Secretary, Rourkela Development Authority and another. Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Vaidyanathan For the Opposite parties : N o n e. P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SMT. BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER A N D HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT, A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:-
03RD DECEMBER, 2008.
Sri B. Vaidyanathan, the then Secretary of the Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela, who has been later on authorized by the General Body of Protection Council, Rourkela to represent the council in the court of law has initiated this proceeding for execution of order dated 24.03.2004 (xerox copy Annexure-IV) of the Honble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal Nos.253 to 257 of 1998 and for other reliefs. These appeals were filed challenging the orders dated 16.07.1998 (xerox copy Annexure-III) of this Commission in C.D. Case Nos.338, 345, 346, 358 and 361 of 1992.
2. As a matter of fact the Honble National Commission has passed a common order dated 24.03.2004 (Annexure-IV) in the aforesaid First Appeal Nos.253 to 257 of 1998 and First Appeal Nos.89 to 99 of 1998 arising from the order dated 16.07.1998 (xerox copy Annexure-III) in C.D. Case Nos.338, 345, 346, 358, 360, 361, 364, 366 of 1992 and 182 of 1993.
3. Thus, the present E.P. Case relates to five applicants for houses including Sri B.S. Acharya, complainant in C.D. Case No.338 of 1992. But, no relief has been granted in his faovur by this Commission vide order dated 16.07.1998 (Annexure-III) which has been confirmed by the Honble National Commission vide orders dated 24.03.2004 (Annexure-IV) and again vide order dated 20.10.2005 in M.P. No.143 of 2004 (Annexure-V).
4. We have heard Sri B. Baidyanathan and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Sri B. Baidyanathan has filed a memorandum dated 24.09.2008 stating the names of three applicants Sri K.N. Das, K.G. Venkatraman and Madanlal Katyal, who have no claim as per this execution case against the R.D.A. since the matter between them and R.D.A. has been mutually settled. As per said memorandum, he has mentioned that the liability of applicant B.S. Acharya as on 30.09.2008 including escalation price rupees 37,850/- and interest rupees 70,780/- in total rupees 1,08,630/- minus rupees 6460/- awarded by the Honble National Commission in favour of each of the applicants due to deviation from the specification and drawing of the houses by the B.D.A., in total rupees 1,02,170/-. He has also mentioned in the said memorandum that liability of applicant Jethu Haripal as on 30.09.2008 is rupees 1,08,630/- and liability of R.D.A. in his respect is rupees 3,48,460/- and thus the net liability of R.D.A. is (rupees 3,48,460/- minus rupees 1,08,630/-) = rupees 2,39,830/-. Thus, according to Sri B. Vaidyanathan, except the liability of the parties as aforesaid, the five petitioners have no other claim to be satisfied as per this proceeding.
5. On the other hand, vide memorandum filed on 18.08.2008, R.D.A. has intimated the monetary liability of B.S. Acharya and the monetary liability of Jethu Haripal as on 31.08.2008. With reference to this breakup of liability, R.D.A. has filed monetary liability statement as on 31.10.2008 as per memorandum dated 02.11.2008. Both are in conformity with each other. Vide memorandum dated 02.11.2008, B.S. Acharyas monetary liability to R.D.A. in total is rupees 1,51,808/- including escalation cost rupees 37,850/-, charge of flooring rupees 7,000/- and interest rupees 1,05,958/-, which is excess by rupees 49,638/- in comparison to the breakup of liability as per memorandum dated 24.09.2008 filed on behalf of the petitioner Sri B.S. Acharya. Similarly the liability of R.D.A. to Jethu Haripal as per the memorandum dated 02.11.2008 filed by the R.D.A. is rupees 2,09,916/- whereas R.D.As liability to Jethu Haripal is rupees 2,39,830/- as per aforesaid memorandum dated 24.09.2008 and the differential amount is rupees 28,914/-.
6. We find in both cases of B.S. Acharya and Jethu Haripal escalation cost rupees 37,850/- is not disputed by the parties. In both memorandums filed by B. Vaidyanathan and for R.D.A., the interest calculated does not tally with each other and as such liability of R.D.A. and Jethu Haripal in both the memorandums do not tally. B.S. Acharya does not admit cost of mosaic rupees 7,000/- claimed by R.D.A. as per its memorandum dated 02.11.2008. All other claim raised earlier by the parties having been set at rest in the meantime, unless, the aforesaid discrepancies vide memorandums dated 24.09.2008 and 02.11.2008 are settled there would be no end to the dispute between the parties whereas no materials are there before us to decide in respect to differential amount claimed as aforesaid by the parties. Consumer Fora is also not expected to arrive at a final conclusion on mathematical calculation of amount under dispute. In the circumstance it would be advisable to the parties to settle such dispute amicably.
7. Therefore, we direct both parties to take up the matter sincerely and amicably and settle the amount of liability with all fairness of justice and equity.