Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/592/2017

Veteran Subedar Major Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Army Welfare Housing Organization - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	592 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	08.08.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	14.08.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Veteran Subedar Major Jaswant Singh, H.No.2525/B, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh (UT) PIN 160 047     

 

             …..Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

 

1]  Army Welfare Housing Organization through Managing Director, South Hutments Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi 110 011

 

2]  Project Director, Army Welfare Housing Organisation, Sandeep Vihar, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana)

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE: MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA   PRESIDING  MEMBER

        SH.RAVINDER SINGH           MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :-

 

Complainant in person

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

1]       The complainant has stated that he deposited Rs.3,75,802/- with Army Welfare Housing Organization/OPs in August, 1990, who thereafter allotted him Flat No.2525/B in Sector 47-C, Chandigarh and the possession of which was handed over to him on 14.12.1990.  It is stated that the Army Welfare Housing Organization/OPs on completion of the project returned him Rs.49,190/- vide letter dated 20.3.2002 being excess amount than the cost of the flat.  The complainant filed Civil Suit No.52 of 15.6.2005 before Civil Judge (JD), Chandigarh for following relief:-

a)  For issue of directions to Army Welfare Housing Organization to execute conveyance deed/sale deed of flat No.2525/B, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

b)  For payment of interest @18% p.a. on Rs.49,190/- w.e.f. 1.9.1990

 

2]       The Civil Suit for the complainant qua the relief regarding execution of the conveyance deed in his favour was decreed in his favour, but the Hon’ble Civil Judge (JD), Chandigarh, dismissed the prayer of the complainant for payment of interest, as claimed for in the civil suit on the ground of limitation as well as nonpayment of advolrem court fee vide judgment dated 3.11.2011 (Ann.C-34).

 

3]       The complainant further filed Appeal No.612/2013 before the Hon’ble Addl.District Judge, Chandigarh against the impugned judgment and decree dated 3.11.2011 of Civil Judge (JD), Chandigarh, which was also considered on its merits, but was dismissed.  The Hon’ble ADJ, Chandigarh vide judgement dated 11.9.2014 affirmed the judgment & decree dated 3.11.2011 of Civil Judge (JD), Chandigarh and held the complainant not entitled for payment of interest on the said amount of Rs.49,190/- paid by Army Welfare Housing Organization to the complainant on 20.3.2002 (Ann.C-31).

 

4]       The issue regarding payment of interest on Rs.49,190/- as claimed for by the complainant in the present complainant has already been adjudicated on its merits by the Hon’ble Civil Judge (JD), Chandigarh in civil Suit NO.52 of 15.6.2005, decided on 3.11.2011 and later on affirmed by the Hon’ble Addl.District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 11.9.2014 and as such the present complaint, on the same subject matter, is barred by the principle of         Res judicata.

 

5]       Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stipulates as under:-

"No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court".

 

6]       At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the complainant has got possession of the flat on 14.12.1990 and he has received back the amount of Rs.49,190/- from the Army Welfare Housing Organisation/Opposite Parties on 20.3.2002.  The claim of the complainant in the present complaint for payment of interest on the amount of Rs.49,190/- at this belated stage is untenable, barred by the principle of res judicata as well as being beyond limitation.  Therefore, the complaint, being without merits, is as such dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the complainant, free of charge and file be consigned to record room. 

Announced

14^th August, 2017                   Sd/-    

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

                                                          Sd/-

 

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER