State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Madhu Parkash vs Huda on 27 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.2939 of 2007 Date of Institution: 24.10.2007 Date of Decision: 27.03.2012 Madhu Parkash wife of Shri Anand Parkash, Resident of H.No.210, Sector-6, Panchkula. Appellant (Complainant) Versus 1. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, Panchkula. 2. Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra. Respondents (Ops) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellant. Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.09.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra in Execution Application No.447/2007, which had arisen out of the order dated 26.07.2004 passed in Complaint No.220/2001.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Complainant (appellant herein) was allotted plot No.573-P, in Sector-2, Urban Estate Kurukshetra by the respondents-opposite parties vide allotment letter No.6610 dated 26.09.1998 on a tentative price of Rs.1,68,453.50. The complainant paid Rs.15,314/- at the time of application on 28.12.1987 and Rs.26,799.50 after the allotment on 27.7.1988. The remaining prices of the plot were to be deposited in instalments. The controversy arose between the complainant and HUDA with respect to charging of interest on the balance instalments for which the complainant filed complaint before District Consumer Forum. On having been contested by the opposite parties, the complaint was disposed of with the following relief vide order dated 26.07.2004:-
I accept the complaint partly and direct the Ops to charge the simple interest @ 10% per annum from the complainant on the defaulting amount. The possession has already been offered vide letter dated 25.11.93 to the other allottees adjacent to the complainant as the area was fully developed and the nighbour/allottees of complainant have construct their building and have got occupation certificate from the Ops and the offer of possession is deemed to be delivered to the complainant also on 25.11.93. As the area was fully development and the complainant did not approach to the OPS for preparation of fresh file. As the record was burnt during riots and she never approached to the Ops for sufficient long time of 12 years and she paid nothing towards instalments after making payment of 25% of the tentative price and she is not entitled to any relief. Order be complied accordingly.
In appeal Nos.2281 & 2373 of 2004 filed by HUDA, the impugned order dated 26.07.2004 was modified vide order dated 18.10.2006 with the following observations:-
During the course of arguments learned counsel representing the opposite parties pointedly urged that the District Forum has not given any finding with regard to the entitlement of the opposite parties to recover the enhanced compensation of the land along with interest for the delayed period @ 15% per annum. There is considerable merit in the stand taken from the side of the opposite parties. The definite stand has been taken by the opposite parties in the written statement filed that a sum of Rs.29,601/- was claimed on account of enhanced compensation of the land which she failed to pay within a period of 30 days and thus incurred the liability to pay interest @ 15% per annum for the delayed period till the date of payment. The liability of the complainant in this regard is supported by Clause-9 of the allotment letter bearing No.6610 dated 29.6.1988. It is stated therein that the price of the plot mentioned as Rs.1,68,453.50 in the allotment letter is tentative to the extent that any enhancement of the cost of the land awarded by the opposite parties under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately and determined by the authority. It is further mentioned in this clause that additional price shall be paid within 30 days of this demand. The details of the additional price worked out as Rs.29,601/- towards the enhancement compensation outstanding as on 17.02.1989 has been detailed in the account statement furnished from the side of the opposite parties. The position of law in this regard has been settled in Gian Inder Sharma vs. HUDA 2003(1) PLR 140, wherein it has been laid down that the opposite parties can charge only simple interest @ 15% p.a. on the delayed payment of the additional price of the plot in question. The ratio of the above mentioned case would apply as well to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances of the case the stand of the complainant that she was liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of the additional price @ 10% cannot be sustained. As regards the other direction given by the District Forum to charge 10% interest for the delayed period of payment of the instalment, the same is in consonance with Clause-6 of the allotment letter and as such cannot be faulted. Needless to say, in this case the offer of possession of the plot was made to the complainant on 25.11.1993 after development work had been completed in the area where the allotted plot is located and the complainant thereafter failed to raise construction over the plot within the statutory period. The opposite parties, no doubt, have taken the stand that during the interval period the record was not available. But it is not the case of the complainant that she had applied to the opposite parties for raising construction over the plot after offer of possession was made to the complainant, as stated above. That being so, the complainant is liable to pay the extension fee as demanded by the opposite parties. the order of the District Forum is modified accordingly. Both the appeals are disposed of in terms of the above order.
In the execution filed by complainant, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 12.09.2007 issued following direction:-
.original file of the case was taken from the record and it has been noticed that 34321.50 has been demanded by the Ops towards the extension fee as per statement of account and it has been calculated as per tariff mentioned in charge of statement of account. A sum of Rs.34321.50 p has been mentioned towards extension fee in the order of Honble State Commission also. Therefore, the exact amount demanded towards extension fee is Rs.34324/-. This Forum cannot go beyond the policy and specifically while deciding execution. Therefore, amount will be paid as per HUDA policy. The execution petition stands satisfied as the order has been complied with.
The contention raised on behalf of the appellant-complainant is that the District Consumer Forum has erred in issuing direction beyond the main order dated 26.07.2004 passed by the District Forum while deciding the complaint as well as the order dated 18.10.2006 passed by State Commission. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the Executing Court/Forum cannot go beyond the decree.
We find force in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant. While disposing of the execution application, the District Forum erred by observing that:
This Forum cannot go beyond the policy and specifically while deciding execution. Therefore, amount will be paid as per HUDA policy.
Undisputedly, the District Forum and the State Commission have issued specific direction to the opposite parties to charge interest on the delayed payment, therefore, the said direction cannot be modified in the execution petition. Reference in this regard is made to case UNIVERSAL MOTORS PVT. LTD. versus KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, IV (2011) CPJ 64 (NC), wherein Honble National Commission observed as under:-
9. ..The State Commission appears to have exceeded its jurisdiction by widening the scope of the executable order. In Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School v.
Rajwanti (Smt. (2007) 5 SCC 97, the Apex Court held that the Execution Court was required to execute the decree as made, and had no jurisdiction to widen its Court order to add, unless a specific question was raised relating to discharge or satisfaction of the decree as envisaged in Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. True, the provisions of the CPC are not applicable stricto sensu to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. At the same time, it cannot be over-looked that the main task of the State Commission was to examine the availability of the alternate plot and to execute the order by examining the relevant aspects Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the law settled by Honble Supreme Court as well as State Consumer Commission, it is a fit case where the impugned order passed in the execution petition cannot be allowed to sustain. Respondents-opposite parties cannot charge interest from the appellant-complainant beyond the direction issued by State Consumer Commission in appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, impugned order dated 12.09.2007 passed in Execution Petition No.447/2007 is set aside with the direction to the respondents-opposite parties to comply with the order passed by State Consumer Commission while disposing of appeal Nos.2281 & 2373 of 2004.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 27.03.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member