State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ludhiana Improvement Trust vs Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar ... on 2 February, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.02 of 2018
Date of institution : 29.01.2018
Date of decision : 02.02.2018
1. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, Feroze Gandhi
Market, Ludhiana, through its Chairman/Administrator.
2. Chairman/Administrator, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana.
....Petitioners/Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties
Versus
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Co-operative Housing Building Society
Limited, House No.43-B, Model House, Ludhiana, through its
Authorized Representative.
....Respondent/Decree Holder/Complainant
Revision Petition against the order
dated 30.10.2017 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the petitioners : Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/Judgment Debtors/Opposite parties against the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "District Forum"), whereby the objections filed by them to the Execution Application were dismissed and they were directed to comply with the orders, by way of allotment of plots, failing which they were liable to be dealt Revision Petition No.02 of 2018 2 with, as per Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act").
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
Facts of the Complaint
3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the relevant facts for disposal of the present revision are that the respondent/complainant filed complaint (CC No.148/513 of 08.05.1992), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Petitioners/JDs/opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service on their part, which was decided, vide order dated 07/15-2-1996, and the following order was passed:
"Under the circumstances, the opposite party is ordered to allot alternative plot either in the same area of some other adjacent equally well developed area of the same dimension as of those 33 plots, which are detailed as follows for facility of reference again within a period of four months of the receipt of this order:
Plot No. 612 to 622 11 plots
'' 138 to 145 8 ''
'' 177 to 181 5 ''
'' 146 to 150 5 ''
'' 205 to 207 & 184 3''
33 plots of 150 sq.yds.
Revision Petition No.02 of 2018 3
Under the circumstances, the parties are left to bear the own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties by registered post."
4. The above said order was challenged by the opposite parties, by way of Appeal No.79 of 1996, before this Commission, which was dismissed, vide order dated 17.10.1996 and three months time was provided to the opposite parties to comply with the above said order passed by the District Forum. However, against the order dated 17.10.1996 passed by this Commission, the opposite parties filed Revision Petition No.1359 of 1996 before the Hon'ble National Commission, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 28.05.2001, with costs of ₹10,000/-, observing that there was no infirmity-legal or otherwise, with the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission. The SLP filed by the opposite parties against that order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at admission stage, vide order dated 28.09.2010.
5. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with the order passed by the District Forum, despite its finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the complainant filed execution application (EA No.102 of 2001) under Section 27 of the Act. The opposite parties filed objections to that execution application, which were dismissed, vide order dated 20.04.2004, by the District Forum. Thereafter, the opposite parties challenged that order before this Commission, by way of Appeal No.712 of Revision Petition No.02 of 2018 4 2004, which was allowed, vide order dated 03.05.2006, observing that the original order passed by the District Forum stood complied with, and the order dated 20.04.2004 passed by the District Forum was set aside. Resultantly, the execution application was dismissed.
6. Against that order, the complainant approached the Hon'ble National Commission, by way of Revision Petition No.1354 of 2006, which was decided vide order dated 18.05.2011 and the order passed by the State Commission was set aside. The case was remanded back to it, for deciding the matter afresh, directing the parties to appear before the State Commission on 04.08.2011.
7. This Commission, after remand of the case, dismissed the appeal (FA No.712 of 2004) filed by the opposite parties, vide order dated 21.02.2012, with costs of ₹20,000/-, by affirming the order dated 20.04.2004 passed in Execution Application by the District Forum.
8. Then the opposite parties Revision Petition No.2850 of 2012 against that order before the Hon'ble National Commission, which was disposed of, vide order dated 06.06.2016, and the complainant was given liberty to withdraw Execution No.102 of 05.07.2011, due to technical defect therein, and to file a fresh one.
9. Thereafter, fresh Execution Application (EA No.103 of 2016) was filed by the complainant, to which reply/objections were Revision Petition No.02 of 2018 5 also filed by the opposite parties; which have been dismissed, vide the impugned order. Hence, this Revision Petition.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage and have carefully perused the record.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order dated 07/15-02-1996 passed by the District Forum in original complaint, Annexure P-7; the order dated 17.10.1996 passed by this Commission, Annexure P-8; order dated 28.05.2001 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission, Annexure P-9 as well as the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP on 28.09.2010 are against the law and evidence on record and, hence, this Commission has jurisdiction to go into the merits of the orders passed in the execution proceedings. It was, thus, contended that the impugned order and other orders are illegal and the same are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following case:
i) Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal & Anr. 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 260 (SC);
ii) Haji Sk. Subhan v. Madhorao 1962 AIR (SC) 1230;
iii) United Bank of India, Calcutta v. Abhijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd.
2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 168 (SC);
iv) Chandan Lal Bapna v. Abdul Gani Meah 1976 AIR (Gauhati) 54; and Revision Petition No.02 of 2018 6
v) K.V.V. Satyanarayana v. Yenamandala Subba Rao 1977 AIR (A.P.).
12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.
13. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that we have repeatedly requested learned counsel for the petitioner to show, as to in what circumstances, we can go beyond the order dated 07/15-2-1996, Annexure P-8, passed by the District Forum, which has become final upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioners continued to insist that still this Commission should pass an order, staying the execution proceedings pending before the District Forum, on the ground that the original order was passed without jurisdiction, which is being sought to be executed.
14. We have also perused the citations relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners.
15. It is settled principle of law that no one can travel beyond the original order passed, in consumer complaint. The execution proceedings are only for the purpose of compliance of the order passed by a competent court of law. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that firstly we should decide the issue that the complainant-Society was not a 'Consumer", under the Act and; secondly that the original order, Annexure P-8, was passed without jurisdiction. Revision Petition No.02 of 2018 7
16. Admittedly, the complaint was originally decided on merits by the District Forum, vide order dated 07/15-02-1996. It was at the stage of that complaint that such an objection could have been raised and decided. In execution proceedings, such an objection is not maintainable. Secondly, the above said order was passed by the District Forum under the provisions of the Act and the District Forum was certainly competent to decide the complaint under the provisions of the Act. At the sake of repetition, it is relevant to mention that the said order of the District Forum was challenged by the opposite parties upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same has become final. The ratio of the law mentioned in the cited authorities is not disputed, but we can also not ignore the fact that the executing court cannot travel beyond the judgment/decree/order passed by the competent authority. Otherwise also, the District Forum has no power under Act to review its own orders.
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivshankar Gurgar v. Dilip [Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.21560 of 2011], decided on 03.01.2014 held as under:
".........It is a settled principle of law that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. It has no jurisdiction to modify a decree. It must execute the decree as it is."
18. Similar law laid was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Financial Corporation v. M/s Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. Appeal (Civil) 16814 of 1996, decided on Revision Petition No.02 of 2018 8 26.08.2013; as well as by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in M/s IndusInd Bank Limited v. Sunil Kumar Sahu & Anr. WP (227) No.691 of 2016, decided on 03.04.2017
19. From analysis of entire record, facts and circumstances, we find that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is well reasoned and detailed one. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or perversity therein.
20. In view of our above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
21. Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Commission, therefore, the petitioners through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it would be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the petitioners to inform them accordingly. Copy of the order be also sent to the respondent.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER February 02, 2017.
(Gurmeet S)