State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Kumar Setia vs Improvement Trust Jalandhar on 20 April, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application Nos.1255 of 2021 & 1080 of 2022
In/and
Execution Application No.79 of 2017
In
Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2015
Date of institution : 23.05.2017
Reserved On : 01.03.2023
Date of decision : 20.04.2023
Raj Kumar Setia son of Sh. Chiman Lal Setia, resident of Street No.2,
New Suraj Nagri, Chowk No.12, Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District
Fazilka.
....Applicant/Decree Holder
Versus
1. Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, District Jalandhar.
2. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, District Jalandhar, through its
Executive Officer.
....Respondents/Judgment Debtors
Execution Application for punishing the
respondents/judgment debtors for non-
compliance of the order dated 07.03.2017
passed by this Commission in Consumer
Complaint No.221 of 2015.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the applicant/DH : Sh. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate For the respondents/JDs : Sh. Prem Kumar, Advocate Execution Application No.79 of 2017 2 JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT This order of ours shall dispose off total thirteen Execution Applications i.e. Execution Application No.79 of 2017, Execution Application No.13 of 2016, Execution Application No.332 of 2020, Execution Application No.346 of 2020, Execution Application No.368 of 2020, Execution Application No.369 of 2020, Execution Application No.373 of 2020, Execution Application No.374 of 2020, Execution Application No.190 of 2020, Execution Application No.460 of 2019, Execution Application No.461 of 2019, Execution Application No.189 of 2021 and Execution Application No.253 of 2020, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the Execution Applications and as such the same shall be disposed off together.
However, the facts are being extracted from Execution Application No.79 of 2017.
Execution Application No.79 of 2017
2. The applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') Mr. Raj Kumar Setia filed the present Execution Application under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') for punishing the respondents/judgment debtors (in short, 'JDs') for non-compliance of the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2015.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the present Execution Application are that the Execution Application No.79 of 2017 3 DH/complainant had filed Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2015 before this Commission with the grievances that he had applied for allotment of a plot measuring 250 sq.yds. with the JDs and deposited an amount of ₹48,99,075/- with them. The possession of the said plot was not delivered within the stipulated period and the complaint was filed before this Commission, for issuance of directions to the JDs to refund the deposited amount along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
4. Said complaint was allowed by this Commission along with a bunch of other 25 similar complaints vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"48. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹48,99,075/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹4,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."
5. Said order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing the order till its realization. Execution Application No.79 of 2017 4
6. However, the JDs/OPs failed to comply with the said order within the given period and as such the DH had to file the present Execution Application with the payer to summon the JDs and to punish them for not complying with the order passed in the complaint as per the provisions of the Act.
7. On issuance of notice of the Execution Application, the JDs appeared before this Commission through counsel on 14.07.2017.
8. However, learned counsel for the JDs submitted that the JDs filed First Appeal No.1041 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the District Commission before the Hon'ble National Commission. The operation of the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Commission was stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the amount so awarded vide order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
"The operation of the impugned order is stayed, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the consumer fora below, within a period of four weeks with the District Forum, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR, initially for a period of one year.
9. In compliance of the said order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, the JDs had deposited an amount of ₹31,14,346/- with the District Commission, Jalandhar, vide demand draft No.500287 dated 28.09.2017 as is apparent from orders dated 09.10.2017 and 12.10.2018 passed by this Commission in the present Execution Application. The Execution Application was adjourned sine Execution Application No.79 of 2017 5 die vide order dated 12.10.2018 by giving liberty to the applicant/DH to get it listed after decision of the appeal by the Hon'ble National Commission. The Registry was also directed to list the Execution Application after the decision of the appeal passed by the Hon'ble National Commission.
10. The First Appeal No.1041 of 2017 filed by the JDs before the Hon'ble National Commission was disposed of/partly allowed along with bunch of other similar cases vide order dated 28.08.2020, whereby the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Commission was modified to the extent that the orders relating to compensation were set aside. However, the orders for refund along with 9% interest per annum together with costs of litigation were upheld. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
58. The appeals filed by the JIT (except FA 2512 and 2513 of 2017) are partly allowed and the impugned orders of the State Commission are modified to the extent that the orders relating to award of compensation are set aside. However, the orders for refund along with 9% p.a. interest together with cost of litigation (if any, ordered) are upheld."
11. Thereafter, the DH filed M.A. No.502 of 2021 for revival of the Execution Application (along with copy of order dated 28.08.2020 passed by this Commission), which was allowed vide order dated 27.04.2021 and the Execution Application was revived/taken on board. It was also mentioned in the order dated 27.04.2021 that the counsel for the DH had submitted that the DH had got released the amount of ₹36,60,018/- from the District Commission and still the JDs were liable Execution Application No.79 of 2017 6 to pay an amount of ₹37,80,473/- and ₹25,000/-. They were also directed to deposit an amount of ₹10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.
12. Upon issuance of notice, the JDs appeared through counsel. However, the compliance of the order passed by this Commission was not made by paying the remaining outstanding amount. Accordingly, non-bailable warrants were issued against the JDs. Ultimately, Sh. Rajesh Chaudhary, Executive Officer, JD No.2 had appeared along with counsel on 26.08.2021 and also moved an application for grant of bail, which was allowed vide order dated 26.08.2021 and he was released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹15,000/- by imposing certain conditions as imposed vide said order. It is also mentioned in said order that the counsel for the JDs had handed over a cheque bearing No.191462 dated 25.08.2021 for ₹5,00,000/- to the counsel for the DH.
13. Mr. Daljit Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman, Improvement Trust, JD No.1 had appeared on 28.09.2021 and moved an application for grant of bail, which was allowed vide order dated 28.09.2021 and he was released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1 lac with certain conditions imposed vide said order. However, his personal appearance was exempted till further orders in view of his medical condition. It was also mentioned in the said order that the learned counsel for the JDs had handed over a cheque bearing No.195580 Execution Application No.79 of 2017 7 dated 24.09.2021 for ₹5 lac to the learned counsel for the DH, which was duly accepted by him. Other cheque bearing No.195671 dated 27.10.2021 for ₹4 lac was also handed over by learned counsel for the JDs to learned counsel for the DH as is evident from the zimni order dated 28.10.2021. Learned counsel for JDs had further handed over a cheque bearing No.196385 dated 07.12.2021 to learned counsel for the DH as mentioned in the zimni order dated 09.12.2021. In the other zimni order dated 18.01.2022, it has been mentioned that the counsel for JDs had handed over a cheque No.196509 dated 17.01.2022 for ₹5 lac to counsel for the DH. As per zimni order dated 22.02.2022, counsel for the JDs had handed over a cheque bearing No.197456 dated 18.02.2022 to learned counsel for the DH. Further, a cheque No.197577 dated 22.03.2022 for ₹9,49,776/- was also handed over by learned counsel for JDs to learned counsel for DH which is evident from the zimni order dated 24.03.2022. On said date, interest calculation sheet was also filed. Objections to the Interest Calculation Sheet were also filed.
14. Mr. Ramnik Gupta, learned counsel for the DH has submitted that the accrual of interest on the deposited amount by the DH did not cease as the deposited amount was in compliance of the stay order as granted by the appellate Court as the DH was not going to be benefitted. Hence, it was not the payment of the decretal amount to the DH as per the general law and also the provisions of Order XXI Execution Application No.79 of 2017 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Learned counsel has further submitted that no liberty was granted by the Hon'ble National Commission to the DH to utilize the said amount till disposal of the appeal. The act of JD in paying the amount to the DH under Order XXI Rule 1 of CPC would require a positive act on the part of the JDs either by depositing the amount before the Executing Court to execute the order. Learned counsel further submits that mere deposit of the decretal amount in the Court other than the Executing Court can never be considered the payment and even where the decretal amount is deposited before the Executing Court and the JD's liability to pay interest did not cease. The JDs are liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount as per the order passed in the complaint till realization of the entire amount. Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar & Ors. v. O.R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar & Ors. Civil Appeal No.462 of 1965 decided on 04.03.1968 (SC);
ii) Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited 2022(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 1002 (SC);
iii) Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. Oswal Woolen Mills OMP (ENF.)(COMM.) 116/2018 & I.A.No.6694/2018 decided on 17.07.2019 (Delhi High Court);
iv) Delhi Development Authority v. Bhai Sardar Singh & Sons C.M. No.5462/2007 decided on 16.03.2019 (Delhi High Court);
v) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harku Devi & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.237 of 1989 decided on 17.11.1989 (Rajasthan High Court);
Execution Application No.79 of 2017 9
vi) Pappu Suramma v. Boggavarapu Somanna (died) Boggavarapu Suryanarayana & Ors. Letters Patent Appeal No.47 of 1962 decided on 04.03.1964;
vii) M/s Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. v. M/s Arvind Construction Co. Ltd. EFA (OS) No.4 of 2008 & CM No.1432 of 2008 decided on 29.05.2009 (Delhi High Court);
viii) Union of India v. M/s Harbans Singh Tuli & Sons C.R. No.2237 of 2020 (O&M) decided on 07.12.2013 (Punjab & Haryana High Court); and
ix) Delhi Transport Corporation v. Smt. Harbans Kaur & Ors.
1983 AIR (Delhi) 265.
15. Mr. Prem Kumar, learned counsel for the JDs has submitted that once the Hon'ble National Commission had ordered the JDs to deposit 50% of the decretal amount then the JDs were not liable to pay interest on the said amount after its deposit. Learned counsel has further submitted that the amount was deposited with the District Commission and the same was got released by the DH along with interest accrued on the F.D. and as such the DH cannot claim interest on the said deposited amount. Learned counsel for JDs has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. R.S. Avtar Singh & Co. 2013 (1) SCC 243 (SC);
ii) V. Kala Bharati & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
2014 (5) SCC 577 (SC);
iii) Union of India & Anr. v. M.P. Trading and Investment Rac.
Corp. Ltd. 2015 (5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 152 (SC);
iv) H.P. Housing & Urban Devt. Auth. & Anr. v. Ranjit Singh Rana Civil Appeal No.2751 of 2012 decided on 12.03.2012 (SC); and Execution Application No.79 of 2017 10
v) Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. v.
Prabha Aggarwal F.A. No.668 of 2018 decided on 07.09.2022 (NC).
16. Heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Commission in the complaint, orders passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, Execution Application, objections and all other documents available on the file.
17. Admittedly, the DH had filed Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2015 before this Commission, which was allowed by this Commission along with a bunch of other 25 similar complaints vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order has already been reproduced above but still it is reproduced as under for the convenience of the Court and parties:
"48. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹48,99,075/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹4,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."
18. Instead of complying with the said order, the JDs had filed First Appeal No.1041 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The operation of the order Execution Application No.79 of 2017 11 dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Commission was stayed vide order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
"The operation of the impugned order is stayed, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the consumer fora below, within a period of four weeks with the District Forum, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR, initially for a period of one year.
19. In compliance of the said order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, the JDs had deposited an amount of ₹31,14,346/- with the District Commission, Jalandhar, vide demand draft No.500287 dated 28.09.2017 as is apparent from orders dated 09.10.2017 and 12.10.2018 passed by this Commission. The Execution Application was adjourned sine die vide order dated 12.10.2018 by giving liberty to the applicant/DH to get it listed/revived after decision of the appeal by the Hon'ble National Commission.
20. It is relevant to mention that that the decree was passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2015. Admittedly the stay order is normally passed subject to deposit of the amount either before the appellate Court or the Executing Court. However, as per order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, the amount was ordered to be deposited before the District Commission. Said order was passed in the absence of the DH, as the service of DH was not yet effected before the Hon'ble National Commission. Said order was not got corrected by the JDs before the Hon'ble National Commission. However, the amount so deposited along with interest Execution Application No.79 of 2017 12 was got released by the DH from the District Commission after the final decision of the appeal by the Hon'ble National Commission.
21. First Appeal No.1041 of 2017 filed by the JDs before the Hon'ble National Commission was disposed of/partly allowed along with bunch of other similar cases vide order dated 28.08.2020. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
58. The appeals filed by the JIT (except FA 2512 and 2513 of 2017) are partly allowed and the impugned orders of the State Commission are modified to the extent that the orders relating to award of compensation are set aside. However, the orders for refund along with 9% p.a. interest together with cost of litigation (if any, ordered) are upheld."
22. Subsequently, the Execution Application was revived vide order dated 27.04.2021 passed in M.A. No.502 of 2021 filed by the DH It was also mentioned in the order dated 27.04.2021 that the counsel for the DH had submitted that the DH had got released the amount of ₹36,60,018/- from the District Commission and the JDs were liable to pay an amount of ₹37,80,473/- and ₹25,000/-. It was also observed that the JDs were also liable to deposit an amount of ₹10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.
23. The issue to be determined for disposal of the Execution Application is as to whether the interest on the amount so deposited with the District Commission by the JDs in compliance of the interim stay order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission would cease to be paid from the date of deposit of said amount or not? Execution Application No.79 of 2017 13
24. Similar issue was there before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar (supra), wherein following observations were made:
"On principle, it appears to us that the facts of a judgment- debtor's depositing a sum in court to purchase peace by way of stay of execution of the decree on terms that the decree- holder can draw it out on furnishing security, does not pass title to the money to the decree-holder. He can if he likes take the money out in terms of the order; but so long as he does not do it, there is nothing to prevent the judgment- debtor from taking it out by furnishing other security, say, of immovable property,' if the court allows him to do so and on his losing the appeal putting the decretal amount in court in terms of Order 21 rule 1 C.P.C. in satisfaction of the decree.
The real effect of deposit of money in court as was done in this case is to put the money beyond the reach of the parties pending the disposal of the appeal. The decree- holder could only take it out on furnishing security which means that the payment was not in satisfaction of the decree and the security could be proceeded against by the judgment debtor in case of his success in the appeal. Pending The determination of the same, it was beyond the reach of the judgment-debtor.
The observations in. Chowthmull's case(1) do not help the respondent. In that case, the appeal was not proceeded with by the Official Assignee. Consequently, the decree-holder could not be deprived of the money which had been put into court to obtain stay of execution of the decree as but for the order, the decree-holder could have levied execution and obtained satisfaction of the decree even before the disposal of the appeal.
The last contention raised on behalf of the respondent was that at any rate the decree-holder cannot claim any amount by way of interest after the deposit of the money in court. There is no substance in this point because the deposit in this case was not unconditional and the decree-holder was not free to withdraw it whenever he liked even before the disposal of the appeal. In case he wanted to do so, he had to give security in terms of the order. The deposit was not in terms of Order 21 rule I C.P.C. and as such, there is no question of the stoppage of interest after the deposit. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court set aside and that of the Subordinate Judge restored. The respondent will pay the costs of this appeal."
25. Similar ratio of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Harbans Singh Execution Application No.79 of 2017 14 Tuli & Sons (supra), by relying the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
26. Similar issue was also there before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Arvind Construction Co. Ltd. (supra). The relevant portion of said judgment are reproduced as under:
"12. The last and most crucial aspect arises from the appellant obtaining a stay of the decree in appeal before the Division Bench on the condition of deposit of Rs.1.5 crore and the amount to be released to the respondent on furnishing a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Registrar. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that this amount is liable to be adjusted against the decretal amount payable as on the date when the amount was withdrawn by the respondent while learned counsel for the respondent contends that the amount being deposited as a condition of stay, the same could not be treated as a deposit towards satisfaction of the decree.
13. In our considered view, the issue is no more res integra in view of various pronouncements of this Court and the Supreme Court. The payment made for obtaining a stay of the decree before the appellate court cannot be said to be an amount paid under Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) towards satisfaction of the decree. The observations of the learned single Judge of this Court in Hindustan Construction Corporation Vs. DDA & Ors. 2002 (65) DRJ 43 in paras 5 & 6 have been reproduced hereinbelow:
"5. The only question to be determined in this petition is as to whether the deposit of the decretal amount by the judgment debtor under the orders of the Appellate Court, could be construed as payment to decree Holder or not. According to Rule 1 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the modes of payment of a money decree are (a) by depositing into Court whose duty it is to execute the decree or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a Bank; or (b) out of court to the decree holder by postal money order or through a Bank or by any other mode wherein payment in evidenced in writing; or (c) otherwise as the Court, which made the decree directs. A perusal of the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the decree holder and particularly the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PSL Ramanathan Chettiar and Ors v. ORMPRM Ramanathan Chettiar (Supra) make it clear that the deposit of decretal amount by judgment debtor in the Court to purchase peace by way of stay of execution of the decree does not pass title in the deposited money in favour of the decree holder and as such, is not a payment in terms of Order 21 Rule 1 of the Execution Application No.79 of 2017 15 Code of Civil Procedure which prescribes specific modes for the satisfaction of a money decree.
6. The payment made to a Decree Holder under Rule 1 of Order 21 CPC and a deposit made by a judgment debtor in Court for obtaining stay of execution of decree against him are altogether different courses adopted by a judgment debtor. Payment under Order 21 Rule 1 CPC satisfies a decree holder whereas a deposit in the Court to avoid execution keeps the amount beyond the reach of Decree holder and leaves him waiting for its release.
The deposit of the decretal amount, therefore, by a judgment debtor as a condition for obtaining stay of the execution of the decree cannot be treated at par with payment to the Decree Holder. As such in spite of such deposit of interest, as ordered in favour of the decree holder by the Court passing the decree continues to run against the judgment debtor till the Decree holder actually receives the money. The rationale behind this view is that a judgment debtor who files an appeal to challenge a Decree and applies for stay of execution pending disposal of his appeal seeks to avoid payment of decretal amount to the Decree holder and as such, upon getting stay of execution, even on deposit of decretal amount, succeeds in preventing payment of decretal amount to decree holder. Therefore, his liability to pay interest to decree holder continues till the amount is actually paid to decree holder. A judgment debtor therefore on whose appeal the execution is stayed subject to deposit of decretal amount in Court must take appropriate steps by way of requesting the court to ensure that the deposited amount is invested fruitfully so that at the end of the day, in case has appeal is dismissed and the amount becomes payable to decree holder, the interest earned on the deposited amount is available for discharging the liability of interest."
14. The aforesaid view has been followed by one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.) in A. Tosh & Sons India Ltd. Vs. N.N. Khanna AIR 2006 Delhi 251. We, in a recent decision in EFA (OS) No.1/2007 decided on 22.1.2009, had taken note of the aforesaid two judgements as also judgements of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar & Ors. Vs. O.R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1968 SC 1047 and Haryana Engineering & Foundary Works Vs. Union of India 1998 (47) DRJ 172 respectively.
15. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, despite the aforesaid, sought to emphasize that the amendment to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1 of the said Code carried out in 1976 has some significance and the payment made in appeal court towards stay of the decree is liable to be taken as satisfaction of the decree. In order to appreciate the said plea, the said provision is reproduced hereinbelow:
"ORDER XXI EXECUTION OF DECREES AND ORDERS Payment under decree Execution Application No.79 of 2017 16
1. Modes of paying money under decree (1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely:-
(a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or
(b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or
(c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs.
(2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgement due.
(3) Where money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- rule (1), the money order or payment through bank, as the case may be, shall accurately state the following particulars, namely : -
(a) the number of the original suit;
(b) the names of the parties or where there are
more than two plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as the case may be, the names of the first two plaintiffs and the first two defendants;
(c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is to say, whether it is towards the principal, interest or costs;
(d) the number of the execution case of the Court, where such case is pending; and
(e) the name and address of the payer.
(4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub- rule (2).
(5) On any amount paid under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of such payment:
Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal order or payment through a bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him, or where he avoids acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which money would have been tendered to him in the Execution Application No.79 of 2017 17 ordinary course of business of the postal authorities or the bank, as the case may be."
16. Learned counsel referred to Clause (b) of Rule 1 of Order 21 of the said Code to contend that the payment made as a condition of stay is covered by the said clause as it should be covered by "any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing". Learned counsel sought to draw strength from sub-rule 5 of Rule 1 of Order 21 of the said Code to contend that the interest would cease to run from the date of such payment.
17. In our considered view, the aforesaid is a mis-reading of the provision. Sub-rule 1 of Rule 1 of Order 21 of the said Code provides for payment to be made under the decree and the manner of the same. A deposit in Court has to be before the Court, which has to execute the decree. The executing court is the court which passed the decree and not the appellate court. Clause (b) refers to payment out of court and the latter provision of the said clause cannot be read de hors the original provision "out of court". The object of sub-rule 1 of Rule 1 of Order 21 of the said Code is only where money is paid unconditionally in the manners provided, such payment should be treated towards the decree and that is when interest would stop as per Clauses 4 & 5 of Rule 1 of Order 21 of the said Code. The significant aspect is that these are unconditional payments towards the decree and not payments made partial or in whole for obtaining stay of the decree. We may notice that the amount has been released to the respondent on the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee and the respondent has incurred a large amount as costs towards furnishing bank guarantee in terms of averments made in the application. This is, thus, not payment towards the decree.
18. The respondent cannot charge the bank guarantee charges which bank guarantee was furnished to withdraw the amount but the payment cannot be construed as a payment towards the decree.
Thus, the amounts as specified in the decree would continue to earn interest till the decision in the matter and only at the stage of the decision in appeal would the question arise of adjustments of the amount of Rs.1.5 crore towards the amount of principal and interest due thereon since at that stage on dismissal of the appeal, the bank guarantee would be discharged and the amount would be unconditionally available to the respondent.
27. In another case titled as Delhi Development Authority v. Bhai Sardar Singh & Sons C.M. No.5462/2007 in FAO (OS) 93/2022 & EFA (OS) 9/2007 and EFA (OS) 9/2007, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in Para-17 as under:
"17. In our view, the act of making payment to the decree holder under Rule 1 of Order XXI CPC would require a positive act on the Execution Application No.79 of 2017 18 part of the judgment debtor of either depositing ―into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree‖ or to make payment out of court to the decree holder through a postal money or through a bank or by any other mode ―wherein payment is evidenced in writingǁ, unless the Court which made the decree otherwise directs. The payment made under a decree, to fall within the ambit of Order XXI Rule 1 CPC has therefore, necessarily, to be an unconditional payment by the judgment debtor to the decree holder either directly, or indirectly through the medium of the Court whose duty is to execute the decree. Mere deposit of the decretal amount in a Court, other than an executing Court can never amount to ―payment‖ and even where the decretal amount is deposited in the executing court, the judgment debtors liability to pay interest does not cease until notice contemplated by sub-rule(2) of Rule 1 of Order XXI is given. This is evident from sub-rule(4) above. Order XXI Rule 1 CPC does not contemplate the decree holder having to chase the judgment debtor to realize the decretal amount by seeking attachment of one or the other accounts of the judgment debtor or the properties of the judgment debtor. If resort to the execution process of the Court is required to be made by the decree holder, and the decretal amount is recovered in pursuance of the order of attachment of the accounts of the judgment debtor, and/or sale of assets of the judgment debtor, such realization of the decretal amount would not amount to payment of the decretal amount under Rule 1 of Order XXI."
28. Similar ratio of law was laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Delhi Transport Corporation and by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Harku Devi & Ors. (supra).
29. In the case in hand, the amount was deposited in compliance of direction issued by the Hon'ble National Commission and the same could not be got released till the decision of appeal by Execution Application No.79 of 2017 19 the Hon'ble National Commission. The amount was deposited by the JDs before the District Commission in compliance of directions issued by the Hon'ble National Commission to purchase peace by way of stay of operation of the impugned order passed in the complaint but no liberty was granted by the Hon'ble National Commission to the DH to utilize the said amount till disposal of the appeal. Moreover, by depositing certain amount in compliance of stay order, the JDs were benefitted by not paying the remaining amount during the period of operation of the stay. The DH was at loss as he was not free to withdraw the deposited amount at his own will during the period of stay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar (supra) has held that the DH could get the amount released but on furnishing the security bonds etc. Meaning thereby the amount so deposited in view of conditional stay was not to the complete satisfaction of the decree holder.
30. In the present case, the deposit of the amount was not unconditional as the DH was not free to withdraw the same before the disposal of the appeal whenever he liked. Moreover, the deposit was not voluntary and in terms of Order 21 rule I C.P.C. and as such, there was no question of the stoppage of interest after the deposit.
31. In view of the law laid down in the above noted authorities, the interest on the amount so deposited by the JDs in compliance of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission was not Execution Application No.79 of 2017 20 ceased to be paid from the date of deposit of said amount as said amount was carrying interest as per the decree i.e. 9% p.a. The case law as relied upon by learned counsel for the JDs are distinguishable in view of the law laid down in the above noted authorities.
32. Accordingly, the present Execution Application is disposed off by holding that the DH is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount so deposited by the JDs before the District Commission in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission from the date of deposit of said amount before the District Commission till its realization by the DH.
33. Since the amount was deposited by the JDs before the District Commission and it was carrying interest at the F.D. rate, so it is held that the DH is entitled only to the difference of F.D. rate of interest and 9% interest as awarded on the principal so amount deposited in compliance of interim order passed from the date of its deposit till its realization by the DH from the District Commission.
34. It is also relevant to mention that the amount so deposited before the District Commission also included 50% of compensation amount and the litigation expenses. This fact is also evident from the Calculation Sheet dated 24.03.2022 as submitted by the JDs. The entire amount along with FD interest came to ₹36,60,018/-, which was got released by the DH from the District Commission after the disposal Execution Application No.79 of 2017 21 of the appeal by the Hon'ble National Commission. While deciding the complaint vide order dated 07.03.2017, this Commission had directed the OPs/JDs to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- as costs, out of which an amount of ₹10,000/- was ordered to be deposited in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining amount of ₹10,000/- was to be paid to the complainant/DH.
35. Although, the amount of compensation of was set aside by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 28.08.2020 but the amount which was got released by the DH from the District Commission also included 50% of the compensation as well as interest accrued thereon. Therefore, the said amount of compensation amount along with interest (which has been set aside by the Hon'ble National Commission) shall be adjusted, if not already adjusted.
36. The JDs have filed M.A. No.1255 of 2021 under Section 151 CPC with the prayer to allow them to place on record an additional affidavit of the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar in compliance of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Commission. The DH has also filed M.A. No.1080 of 2022 for filing objections against the Interest Calculation Sheet dated 24.03.2022 supplied by the JDs and for seeking permission to file CA certified Interest Calculation Sheet on behalf of the DH. Similar applications have been filed in other cases also.
Execution Application No.79 of 2017 22
37. Since the main issue has been disposed of, so the all MAs in all the cases are accordingly disposed of.
Execution Application No.13 of 2016
38. In this case also the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.237 of 2014 before this Commission. Said complaint was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 18.01.2016. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"10. In the result, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
a) to refund the sum of Rs.50,24,910/-/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
b) to pay Rs.2,50,000/-, as compensation; and
c) to pay Rs.11,000/-, as litigation costs."
39. Instead of complying with the said order, the JD had filed First Appeal No.335 of 2016 before the Hon'ble National Commission to challenge the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by this Commission.
The operation of order dated 18.01.2016 passed by this Commission was stayed vide order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
"Following our earlier order in FA No.809 of 2015, we direct that subject to the appellant depositing in this Commission 50% of the decretal amount within six weeks from today, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed."
40. The First Appeal No.335 of 2016 filed by the JD before the Hon'ble National Commission was disposed of/partly allowed vide Execution Application No.79 of 2017 23 order dated 28.08.2020 along with the bunch of other similar cases. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
58. The appeals filed by the JIT (except FA 2512 and 2513 of 2017) are partly allowed and the impugned orders of the State Commission are modified to the extent that the orders relating to award of compensation are set aside. However, the orders for refund along with 9% p.a. interest together with cost of litigation (if any, ordered) are upheld."
41. Thereafter, as per order dated 09.04.2021 passed by this Commission, DD No.051149 dated 24.03.2021 for ₹40,27,890/- and DD No.051146 dated 24.03.2021 for ₹47,939.74 were received in this Commission from the Hon'ble National Commission. Later on, an amount of ₹40,75,829.85 was released to the DH as is apparent from zimni order dated 19.05.2021 passed by this Commission. The amount was paid by the JDs to DH on various dates as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case.
42. On 18.01.2022, a cheque bearing No.196516 dated 17.01.2022 for ₹5,00,000/- was presented in the Court by learned counsel for the JD. On said day, the counsel for DH had appeared through VC and the Registry was directed to hand over the said cheque to the DH/his counsel after due verification as and when any of them approaches for the same against proper receipt. However, the said cheque in original is still lying in the file. On the next date of hearing i.e. 22.02.2022, the counsel for the JD had handed over a cheque bearing No.197477 dated 21.02.2022 of ₹12,14,350/- to the counsel for the DH, which was accepted by him. The counsel for the Execution Application No.79 of 2017 24 JD had submitted that the total outstanding amount/full and final amount had been paid. However, the counsel for the DH had sought time to file the calculations as well as the response to the calculation filed by the JD.
43. The aforesaid original cheque dated 17.01.2022 had since been expired. The Registry is directed to return the aforesaid original cheque to the counsel for the JD/JD after due verification against proper receipt. In case the amount of said cheque had not been already paid, the DH is at liberty to claim said amount in compliance of the decree.
Execution Application No.332 of 2020
44. In this case also the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.243 of 2015 before this Commission. Said complaint was allowed by this Commission along with the bunch of other 25 similar complaints vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"58. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹39,33,950/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹3,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."Execution Application No.79 of 2017 25
45. Said order was ordered to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the amount of compensation so awarded was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.
46. Instead of complying with the said order, the JDs had filed First Appeal No.1255 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The DH had also filed cross F.A. No.1264 of 2017 for modification of the order passed by this Commission.
47. The Hon'ble National Commission directed the District Commission, Jalandhar to release the amount of ₹24,83,940/- along with interest if any accrued thereon to the DH vide order dated 10.03.2021. The Registry of the Hon'ble National Commission was also directed to release the statutory amount of ₹35,000/- along with accrued interest to the DH.
48. Both the appeals filed by the DH and JDs before the Hon'ble National Commission were disposed of along with bunch of other similar cases vide order dated 28.08.2020. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
58. The appeals filed by the JIT (except FA 2512 and 2513 of 2017) are partly allowed and the impugned orders of the State Commission are modified to the extent that the orders relating to award of compensation are set aside. However, the orders for refund along with 9% p.a. interest together with cost of litigation (if any, ordered) are upheld."Execution Application No.79 of 2017 26
49. The amount was also paid by the JDs to DH on various dates as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case. Execution Application No.346 of 2020
50. In this case, the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.100 of 2016 before this Commission. Said complaint was allowed by this Commission along with another similar complaint vide order dated 21.07.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"11. As a consequence of our above discussion, we accept the above referred complaint No.100 of 2016 and Complaint No.101 of 2016. In Complaint No.100 of 2016, we direct OPs to refund the entire deposited amounts by complainant along with interest @ 12 per annum from the date of deposit of money till its realization; further to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental harassment; and to pay Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation. The above amounts shall be payable within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copies of the order by OPs to complainant Darshan Singh."
51. Instead of complying with the said order, the JDs had filed First Appeal No.2512 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 21.07.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. During the pendency of said appeal, the operation of order dated 21.07.2017 passed by this Commission was stayed vide order dated 30.01.2018. The operative portion of said order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission is reproduced as under
"Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Trust, who stated that similar matters, in relation to the same project, were already pending before this Commission.
Issue notice to the respondents in all these cases, subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent in each case to cover to and fro and allied expenses.Execution Application No.79 of 2017 27
The Registry may ensure that the notice is issued and dispatched within a period of ten days.
In the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order is stayed, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the consumer fora below with the State Commission within a period of eight weeks, if not done already, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR initially for a period of one year.
List the matters for further hearing on 17.07.2018."
52. In compliance of said order, an amount of ₹31,30,032/- was deposited by the JDs before this Commission vide DD No.008424 dated 23.03.2018. Said amount along with interest accrued thereon totaling ₹37,56,194/- was paid to the DH vide this office report dated 22.06.2021 in compliance of order dated 10.06.2021 passed by this Commission.
53. The First Appeal No.2512 of 2017 filed by the JDs before the Hon'ble National Commission was disposed of/partly allowed along with bunch of other similar cases vide order dated 28.08.2020, whereby the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by this Commission was modified. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
59. FA/2512/2017 and FA/2513/2017:
These two appeals are partly allowed and the rate of interest of 12% p.a. as awarded by the State Commission on the amounts of refund is reduced to 9% p.a. The order awarding compensation is also set aside. The cost of litigation awarded by the State Commission is upheld."
54. The amount was paid by the JDs to DH on various dates as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case. Execution Application No.368 of 2020 Execution Application No.79 of 2017 28
55. In this case also the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.242 of 2015 before this Commission, which was allowed by this Commission along with bunch of other 25 similar complaints vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"56. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹39,19,450/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹3,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."
56. Said order was ordered to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.
57. Instead of complying with the said order, the JDs had filed First Appeal No.1254 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The DH also filed cross F.A. No.1263 of 2017 for modification of the order passed by this Commission.
58. The operation of the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Commission was stayed vide order dated 21.07.2017 passed by Execution Application No.79 of 2017 29 the Hon'ble National Commission. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
"The operation of the impugned order is stayed, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the consumer fora below, within a period of four weeks with the District Forum, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR, initially for a period of one year.
59. In compliance of the said order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, the JDs had deposited the requisite amount with the District Commission, Jalandhar.
60. Both the appeals filed by the DH and JDs before the Hon'ble National Commission were disposed of along with bunch of other similar cases vide order dated 28.08.2020. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
58. The appeals filed by the JIT (except FA 2512 and 2513 of 2017) are partly allowed and the impugned orders of the State Commission are modified to the extent that the orders relating to award of compensation are set aside. However, the orders for refund along with 9% p.a. interest together with cost of litigation (if any, ordered) are upheld."
61. It was mentioned in the zimni order dated 06.01.2021 passed by this Commission that the counsel for the DH had submitted that the DH had got released an amount of ₹29,03,018/- from the District Commission, Jalandhar.
62. The amount was also paid on various occasions by the JDs to DH as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case. Execution Application No.369 of 2020
63. In this case also the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.241 of 2015 before this Execution Application No.79 of 2017 30 Commission. Said complaint was allowed by this Commission along with other bunch of 25 similar complaints vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"54. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹70,69,593/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹7,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."
64. Said order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.
65. Instead of complying with the said order, the JDs had filed First Appeal No.1043 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The DH had also filed cross F.A. No.1262 of 2017 for modification of aforesaid order passed by this Commission.
66. The operation of the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Commission was stayed vide order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
Execution Application No.79 of 2017 31
"The operation of the impugned order is stayed, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the consumer fora below, within a period of four weeks with the District Forum, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR, initially for a period of one year.
67. In compliance of the said order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, the JDs had deposited the requisite amount with the District Commission, Jalandhar.
68. Both the appeals filed by the DH and JDs before the Hon'ble National Commission were disposed of along with bunch of other similar cases vide order dated 28.08.2020. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
58. The appeals filed by the JIT (except FA 2512 and 2513 of 2017) are partly allowed and the impugned orders of the State Commission are modified to the extent that the orders relating to award of compensation are set aside. However, the orders for refund along with 9% p.a. interest together with cost of litigation (if any, ordered) are upheld."
69. It was mentioned in the zimni order dated 06.01.2021 passed by this Commission that the counsel for the DH had submitted that the DH had got released an amount of ₹53,19,981/- from District Commission, Jalandhar.
70. The amount was paid by the JDs to DH on various dates as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case. Execution Application No.373 of 2020
71. In this case also the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.269 of 2015 before this Commission, which was allowed by this Commission along with other Execution Application No.79 of 2017 32 bunch of 25 similar complaints vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"62. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹79,52,663/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹7,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."
72. Said order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.
73. Instead of complying with the said order, the JDs had filed First Appeal No.1044 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The DH had also filed cross F.A. No.1266 of 2017 for modification of aforesaid order passed by this Commission.
74. The operation of the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Commission was stayed vide order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
"The operation of the impugned order is stayed, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the consumer fora Execution Application No.79 of 2017 33 below, within a period of four weeks with the District Forum, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR, initially for a period of one year.
75. In compliance of the said order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, the JDs had deposited the requisite amount with the District Commission, Jalandhar.
76. Both the appeals filed by the DH and JDs before the Hon'ble National Commission were disposed of along with bunch of other similar cases vide order dated 28.08.2020. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
58. The appeals filed by the JIT (except FA 2512 and 2513 of 2017) are partly allowed and the impugned orders of the State Commission are modified to the extent that the orders relating to award of compensation are set aside. However, the orders for refund along with 9% p.a. interest together with cost of litigation (if any, ordered) are upheld."
77. It was mentioned in the zimni order dated 08.01.2021 passed by this Commission that the counsel for the DH had submitted that the DH had got released an amount of ₹59,14,252/- from District Commission, Jalandhar.
78. The amount was paid by the JDs to DH on various dates as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case. Execution Application No.374 of 2020
79. In this case also the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.231 of 2015 before this Commission. Said complaint was allowed by this Commission along with the bunch of other 25 similar complaints vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under: Execution Application No.79 of 2017 34
"52. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹39,19,450/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹3,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."
80. Said order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the amount of compensation so awarded was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.
81. Instead of complying with the said order, the JDs had filed First Appeal No.1042 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The DH had also filed cross F.A. No.1540 of 2017 for modification of aforesaid order passed by this Commission.
82. The operation of the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Commission was stayed vide order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
"The operation of the impugned order is stayed, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the consumer fora below, within a period of four weeks with the District Forum, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR, initially for a period of one year.Execution Application No.79 of 2017 35
83. In compliance of the said order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, the JDs had deposited the requisite amount with the District Commission, Jalandhar.
84. Both the appeals filed by the DH and JDs before the Hon'ble National Commission were disposed of along with bunch of other similar cases vide order dated 28.08.2020. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
58. The appeals filed by the JIT (except FA 2512 and 2513 of 2017) are partly allowed and the impugned orders of the State Commission are modified to the extent that the orders relating to award of compensation are set aside. However, the orders for refund along with 9% p.a. interest together with cost of litigation (if any, ordered) are upheld."
85. It was mentioned in the zimni order dated 08.01.2021 passed by this Commission that the counsel for the DH had submitted that the DH had got released an amount of ₹25,36,919/- from District Commission, Jalandhar.
86. The amount was paid by the JDs to DH on various dates as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case. Execution Application No.190 of 2020
87. In this case also the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.2 of 2015 before this Commission, which was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"20. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-Execution Application No.79 of 2017 36
i) to refund the sum of ₹59,32,940/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹5,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."
88. Said order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.
89. Instead of complying with the said order, the JD had filed First Appeal No.1210 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The DH had also filed F.A. No.1473 of 2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission for modification of the order passed in the complaint.
90. An amount of ₹39,33,730/- was deposited by the JD with the District Commission Jalandhar vide DD No.500249 dated 05.09.2017, as per interim order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the said appeal. This fact is evident from order dated 17.09.2020 passed by this Commission. However, vide order dated 28.09.2021, the District Commission, Jalandhar was directed to release the said amount along with interest accrued thereon if any to the DH on moving appropriate application by the DH. A letter dated 19.10.2021 was received from District Commission, Jalandhar as per which an amount of ₹48,00,123/- was released to the DH. Execution Application No.79 of 2017 37
91. Both the appeals filed by the DH and JD were disposed of by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 14.06.2019. The relevant operative portion of said order is reproduced as under:
"1. On 07.06.2019, after hearing learned senior counsel for the Improvement Trust and learned counsel for the complainant, and after perusing the material on record, we had passed the following daily Order:
Dated : 07.06.2019 ORDER Heard the learned senior counsel for the Improvement Trust and the learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the material on record.
Learned senior counsel for the Improvement Trust submits inter alia that these instant two first appeals are similar to F.A. no. 995 of 2017 and connected F.A. no. 1268 of 2017 decided by this Commission vide its reasoned judgment dated 10.04.2019 and to FA no. 996 of 2017 and connected FA no. 1269 of 2017 reserved for reasoned judgment by this Commission vide its daily Order dated 07.05.2019.
The impugned Order of the State Commission is partially modified as below:
The principal amount (total Rs. 59,32,940/-) deposited by the complainant with the Improvement Trust shall be refunded with interest from the respective date / s of deposit till the date / s of realization. The rate of interest shall be the rate for house building loan in the corresponding period of a scheduled nationalized bank (take, State Bank of India). If 'floating'/varying/different rates of interest were prescribed in the corresponding period, the higher rate shall be taken for this instant computation.
In addition, compensation for loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness, shall remain Rs. 5,00,000/-, and cost of litigation shall remain Rs. 20,000/- (as awarded by the State Commission).
All payments shall be made within four weeks of the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment.
Failure in timely compliance shall attract higher/penal interest and other compensation/costs (which shall be determined by this Commission in the facts and specificities of that contingency if it so arises).Execution Application No.79 of 2017 38
Reasoned judgment to follow.
Till the pronouncement of the reasoned judgment execution proceedings shall remain stayed.
(emphasis supplied by us)
2. F.A. no. 995 of 2017 and connected F.A. no. 1268 of 2017 were decided by this Commission vide its reasoned judgment dated 10.04.2019 and F.A. no. 996 of 2017 and connected F.A. no. 1269 of 2017 have been decided by this Commission vide its reasoned judgment dated 14.06.2019.
3. We note that these instant two first appeals, F.A. no. 1210 of 2017 and connected F.A. 1473 of 2017, are similar to the F.A. no. 995 of 2017 and connected F.A. no. 1268 of 2017 decided by this Commission vide its Order dated 10.04.2019 and to F.A. no. 996 of 2017 and connected F.A. no. 1269 of 2017 since decided by this Commission vide its Order dated 14.06.2019.
Similar facts and same questions of law are involved.
4. The instant two first appeals, F.A. no. 1210 of 2017 and connected F.A. no. 1473 of 2017, are disposed of in terms of the examination and reasons as contained in the Order dated 10.04.2019 in F.A. no. 995 of 2017 and connected F.A. no. 1268 of 2017 and the Order dated 14.06.2019 in F.A. no. 996 of 2017 and connected F.A. no. 1269 of 2017.
5. The award in these instant two F.A.s, as contained in the daily Order dated 07.06.2019, quoted above, is confirmed."
92. The amount was paid by the JD to DH on various dates as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case. Misc. Application No.1520 of 2021 In/and Execution Application No.460 of 2019 Mic. Application No.1520 of 2021
93. This application was filed by the DH for revival of Execution Application No.460 of 2019 on the ground that an amount of ₹12,63,863/- was still due against the JDs.
94. Heard.
Execution Application No.79 of 2017 39
95. The Execution Application was disposed of vide order dated 28.09.2021. It was also observed in said order that in case there was any difference in the amount paid by either of the party, the parties were at liberty to move appropriate application for revival of the Execution Application.
96. In view of observations made in Execution Application No.79 of 2017, the application is allowed and the Execution Application No.460 of 2019 is revived.
Main Case
97. In this case also the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 before this Commission. Said complaint was allowed by this Commission along with a bunch of other 25 similar complaints vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"14. Accordingly, the complaint (CC No.88 of 2015) is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹48,99,075/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹4,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."
98. Said order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which Execution Application No.79 of 2017 40 the amount of compensation awarded was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.
99. The JDs had failed to comply with the said order and as such the DH had to file the Execution Application with payer to summon the JDs and to punish them for not complying with the order passed in the complaint as per the provisions of the Act.
100. On issuance of notice of the Execution Application, the JDs appeared before this Commission through counsel. However, the JDs had also filed First Appeal No.996 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The DH also filed cross F.A. No.1269 of 2017 for modification of aforesaid order passed by this Commission.
101. Both the said appeals were disposed off by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 14.06.2019 and the order passed by this Commission was partly modified. The relevant portion order the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission is reproduced as under:
"25. We firm-up the award as below:
i) The principal amount (total Rs. 48,99,075/-) deposited by the complainant with the Improvement Trust shall be refunded with interest from the respective date/s of deposit till the date/s of realization. The rate of interest shall be the rate for house building loan in the corresponding period of a scheduled nationalized bank (take, State Bank of India). If 'floating'/varying/different rates of interest were prescribed in the corresponding period, the higher rate shall be taken for this instant computation.Execution Application No.79 of 2017 41
ii) In addition, compensation for loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness, shall remain Rs.
4,00,000/-, and cost of litigation shall remain Rs. 20,000/- (as awarded by the State Commission).
iii) All payments shall be made within four weeks of the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment.
iv) Failure in timely compliance shall attract higher/penal interest and other compensation/costs (which shall be determined by this Commission in the facts and specificities of that contingency if it so arises).
102. Review Application No.136 of 2017 filed by the JDs for review of said order dated 14.06.2019 was also dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2020. It was mentioned in the order dated 28.09.2021 passed by this Commission that the counsel for DH had submitted that an amount of ₹31,43,933/- (50% of awarded amount) was deposited by the JDs with the District Commission. The District Commission, Jalandhar was directed to release said amount along with interest accrued thereon if any to the DH on moving appropriate application. Execution Application No.461 of 2019
103. In this case also the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2014 before this Commission.
104. Said complaint was allowed by this Commission along with a bunch of other 25 similar complaints vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"16. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-Execution Application No.79 of 2017 42
i) to refund the sum of ₹38,99,638/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹3,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."
105. Said order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.
106. The JDs had failed to comply with the said order and as such the DH had to file the present Execution Application with payer to summon the JDs and punish for not complying with the order passed in the complaint as per the provisions of the Act.
107. On issuance of notice of the Execution Application, the JDs appeared before this Commission through counsel. However, the JDs had filed First Appeal No.995 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The DH had also filed F.A. No.1268 of 2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission for modification of said order passed by this Commission. The operation of the said order passed by this Commission was stayed vide order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
"The learned counsel for the appellant Trust stated at the Bar that the Trust was in a position to deliver possession to the complainants in Execution Application No.79 of 2017 43 all these five cases. The learned counsel also apprised that the dispute with the land-owners was confined to one small portion of the land in question, and the same had already been decided in their favour by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. An SLP against the said order had also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Issue notice to the respondents subject to payment of ₹2500/- in each of the five cases to cover to and fro and allied expenses.
The operation of the impugned order is stayed, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the consumer fora below, within a period of four weeks with the District Forum, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR, initially for a period of one year."
108. In compliance of said order, the JDs had deposited an amount of ₹25,98,248/- before the District Commission as is apparent from order dated 24.08.2020 passed by this Commission. However, vide order dated 28.09.2021, the District Commission, Jalandhar was directed to release the said amount along with interest accrued thereon if any to the DH on moving appropriate application by the DH.
109. Both the appeals filed by the DH and JDs were disposed of by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 10.04.2019 and the order passed by this Commission was upheld. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
"(i) The principal amount (total Rs.38,99,638/-) deposited by the complainant with the improvement trust shall be refunded with interest from the respective date/s of deposit till the date / s of realization. The rate of interest shall be the rate for house building loan in the corresponding period of a scheduled nationalized bank (take, State Bank of India). If 'floating' / varying/different rates of interest were prescribed in the corresponding period, the higher rate shall be taken for this instant computation.
(ii) In addition, compensation for loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness, shall remain Rs. 3,00,000/-, and cost of litigation shall remain Rs. 20,000/- (as awarded by the State Commission).Execution Application No.79 of 2017 44
All payments shall be made within four weeks of the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment.
Failure in timely compliance shall attract higher / penal interest and other compensation / costs (which shall be determined by this Commission in the facts and specificities of that contingency if it so arises)."
110. The SLP (Civil) No.42045/2019 was filed by the JD before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to challenge the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission but no stay was granted. The amount was paid by the JDs to DH on various dates as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case.
Execution Application No.189 of 2021
111. In this case also the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.80 of 2015 before this Commission. Said complaint was allowed by this Commission along with the bunch of other 25 similar complaints vide order dated 07.03.2017. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"24. In view of the discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2015 (Archit Gupta v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another), this complaint is also allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
i) to refund the sum of ₹39,43,150/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment;
ii) to pay ₹1,00,000/-, as compensation; and
iii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as costs, out of which ₹10,000/- shall be deposited by the opposite parties in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission and the remaining ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant."Execution Application No.79 of 2017 45
112. Said order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded was to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.
113. Instead of complying with the said order, the JDs had filed First Appeal No.1212 of 2017 to challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 before the Hon'ble National Commission. The DH had also filed cross F.A. No.1373 of 2017 for modification of aforesaid order passed by this Commission.
114. Both the said appeals were disposed of by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 12.12.2019 and the order passed by this Commission was partly modified. The relevant portion order the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission is reproduced as under:
"The impugned Order of the State Commission is partially modified as below:
i) The principal amount (total Rs. 39,43,150/-) deposited by the complainant with the Improvement Trust shall be refunded with interest from the respective date/s of deposit till the date/s of realization. The rate of interest shall be the rate for house building loan in the corresponding period of a scheduled nationalized bank (take, State Bank of India). If 'floating'/varying/different rates of interest were prescribed in the corresponding period, the higher rate shall be taken for this instant computation.
ii) In addition, compensation for loss and injury, harassment and difficulty, uncertainty and helplessness, shall remain Rs.
1,00,000/-, and cost of litigation shall remain Rs. 20,000/- (as awarded by the State Commission).
iii) All payments shall be made within four weeks of the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment.
Execution Application No.79 of 2017 46
iv) Failure in timely compliance shall attract higher/penal interest and other compensation/costs (which shall be determined by this Commission in the facts and specificities of that contingency if it so arises).
115. It has been mentioned in the Execution Application that while granting stay, the Hon'ble National Commission directed the JD to deposit certain amount before the District Commission, Jalandhar. Said amount including interest accrued thereupon (total ₹29,32,578/-) was paid to the DH by District Commission after receipt of order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission.
116. The amount was paid by the JD to DH on various dates as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case.
117. In view of the discussion/ratio of law discussed in Execution Application No.79 of 2017, all the aforesaid Execution Applications are disposed of with the observation that since the amount deposited by the JDs before the Hon'ble National Commission/State Commission/District Commission earned interest at the F.D. etc. rate, so the DH(s) in the aforesaid cases are entitled only to the difference of F.D. etc. rate of interest and the rate of interest as upheld/modified by the Hon'ble National Commission on the principal amount so deposited in compliance of stay order(s) from the date of deposit of the amount till its realization by the DH(s) from the Hon'ble National Commission/State Commission/District Commission.
Execution Application No.79 of 2017 47
118. In some of the aforesaid cases, the compensation has been set aside by the Hon'ble National Commission. However, a part of compensation was deposited along with part of principal amount as per interim stay orders passed by the Hon'ble National Commission. The DH(s) have already got released the deposited amount (including part of compensation amount) from the Hon'ble National Commission/State Commission/District Commission along with interest accrued thereon. So, it is also made clear that said part of compensation amount along with interest (which has been set aside by the Hon'ble National Commission) shall be adjusted, if not already adjusted in the concerned cases.
119. The parties in all the cases are at liberty to get the rate of interest of F.D. confirmed/verified from the Hon'ble National Commission/State Commission/District Commission/Bank where the amount was deposited, for the purpose of calculation of the amount of difference of interest if any as discussed above, if need be. Execution Application No.253 of 2020
120. In the case, the applicant/Decree Holder (in short, 'DH') had filed Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2019 before this Commission, which was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 30.03.2020. The operative part of said order is reproduced as under:
"15. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the OP:
i) to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs.26,60,523/-, along with compensation in the shape of Execution Application No.79 of 2017 48 interest @ 12% per annum from the various dates of deposit till realization for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount during the period it remained with the OP; and
ii) to pay Rs.40,000/-, as compensation for mental harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant, including cost of litigation.
The compliance of this order shall be made by the OP within a period of 60 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order."
121. The JD had failed to comply with the said order and as such the DH had to file the Execution Application with payer to summon the JD and punish it for not complying with the order passed in the complaint as per the provisions of the Act.
122. On issuance of notice of the Execution Application, the JD appeared before this Commission through counsel. There is no stay order or any final order passed in any case by the Hon'ble National Commission on record of this case. The amount was paid by the JD to DH on various dates as is evident from zimni orders passed in this case.
123. It has been mentioned in the zimni order dated 27.05.2022 passed by this Commission that the counsel for JD had submitted that full and final amount had been paid, whereas the counsel for the DH had disputed this fact. The parties were directed to exchange their calculations with each other.
124. In view of the facts circumstances mentioned above, the Execution Application No.253 of 2020 is disposed off. Execution Application No.79 of 2017 49 Remaining amount, if any, be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
125. The JDs in all the above said cases (except EA No.253 of 2020) are directed to pay the remaining amount to the DH(s) within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copies of the orders.
126. In case, there is any difference in the amount paid and payable amount, the parties in all the cases are at liberty to get the Execution Application(s) revived by moving appropriate application.
127. In all the cases (except EA No.13 of 2016, EA No.346 of 2020 and EA No.253 of 2022), a cost of ₹10,000/- was not deposited by the JD(s) in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission as per office report. Therefore, JD(s) are directed to deposit said amount of ₹10,000/- in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission in the said cases forthwith as mentioned above as per orders passed in the said complaints.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER April 20, 2023.
(Gurmeet S)