Punjab

Ludhiana

EA/18/49

Sapna Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Small Ind. and Export - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

27 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Execution application  No: 49 dated 03.07.2018                                Date of decided: 27.07.2022.

                            

Mrs. Sapna Mittal, 1, Farm Ville, Ram Enclave, Vill. Talwara (Near Sai Mandir, Hambrah Road, Ludhiana)                                                                                                                                  …..Decree holder/complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Punjab Small Industries & Export & Export Corporation Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
2. The Estate Officer, P.S.I.E.C., Sector 17, Chandigarh.
3. Sub Divisional Engineer-IV, P.S.I.E.C. Ltd., Ludhiana.                                                                                                 …..JDs/respondents. 

                   (Application U/s.27 of the Consumer Protection Act for                         execution of order.)

Application for directing the respondent to pay the amount of interest because of the illegal retention of Rs.5,57,509/- and also for directing them to execute the Lease Deed in favour of applicant.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For decree holder            :         Sh. A.K. Shori, Advocate.

For JD2 to JD3              :         Sh. Maninder Khara, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                 This order shall dispose of the application filed by the decree holder seeking directions to the OP/JD Corporation to pay interest on the amount of Rs.5,57,509/- and for directing it to execute the lease deed in favour of the applicant.

2.                It is stated in the application that the OP/JD started claiming a payment of Rs.5,57,908/- from the applicant on account of enhancement of price of land. The applicant challenged the said illegal demand of OP/JD by filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum, Ludhiana. After a long litigation between the parties, the demand was declared illegal. The amount of Rs.5,57,908/-  was paid to the OP/JD Corporation on 21.07.2003 following the orders of District Forum, Ludhiana dated 25.07.2002. As the demand of Rs.5,57,908/- was declared as illegal by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, the applicant filed an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. During the pendency of the execution application, this Commission vide order dated 30.09.2021 directed the OP Corporation to refund the payment on or before 19.10.2021. The said amount was refunded by the OP Corporation vide cheque No.855459 dated 16.11.2021. The amount was received under protest by the applicant reserving her right to claim interest which is calculated at Rs.1,27,80,538.80 (without penal interest). The OP Corporation charges interest 18% per annum compounded half yearly from the allottees. Therefore the OP Corporation is under an obligation to refund the amount illegally claimed with interest which comes to Rs.1,27,80,538.80. Apart from this, the applicant is also entitled to the damages for harassment. In the end, it has been requested that the OP/JD Corporation be made to pay penal interest and damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3.                The application has been opposed by the OP/JD corporation. In reply to the application, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the application is not maintainable and is also beyond the scope of execution. The application is nothing but an abuse of process of law. According to the OP/JD Corporation, the demand of Rs.5,57,509/- was made on the ground of enhancement of tentative cost of the plots. The said demand was challenged by the applicant before the District Consumer Forum by filing complaint No.329 of 27.03.2001. The said complaint was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2002 whereby the applicant was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.5,57,509/- within 3 months. The applicant filed an appeal against the order dated 25.07.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana which was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, Punjab vide order dated 20.05.2003. The applicant deposited the amount of Rs.5,57,509/- on 21.07.2003 without any interest. Thereafter, the applicant filed a Revision Petition before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and vide order dated 02.02.2005 the Hon’ble National Commission set aside the demand and directed the OP Corporation to pay interest @10% per annum from 13.07.1999 to 11.08.2003. In compliance of the order of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi the JD Corporation paid an amount of Rs.4,15,497/-  vide cheque No.341851 dated 28.11.2005 being interest @10% per annum from 13.07.1999 to 11.08.2003. The applicant filed Civil Appeal No.3546 of 2008 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the interim order of stay dated 05.12.2005. The OP Corporation further refunded the amount of Rs.5,57,509/-  deposited by the applicant on account of enhancement price of the land vide cheque No.855459 dated 16.11.2021 drawn at Punjab National Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. Thus, there is no lapse on the part of the OP Corporation. The other allegations made in the application have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the application has also been made.

4.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

5.                It has been contended by the counsel for the applicant that an amount of Rs.5,57,908/-, paid on account of enhanced value of the plot, was deposited by the applicant on 21.07.2003. Eventually, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi set aside the demand of Rs.5,57,908/-. However, the amount of Rs.5,57,908/- was refunded by the OP/JD corporation on 16.11.2021. The counsel for the complainant/decree holder has further contended that the said amount was utilized by the OP/JD Corporation for as many as 18 years. Therefore, the OP Corporation be made to pay interest @18% per annum compoundable every three months and, therefore, the OP Corporation is liable to pay Rs.1,27,80,538.80 on account of interest. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon 2016 (227) DLT 480 in M/s. Rajora Builder Vs Delhi Jal Board whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that the amount which was over paid to the decree holder must be refunded with interest @12% per annum. The counsel for the applicant has further relied upon 1985 (2) PLR 683 in State of Punjab Vs Kartar Singh and others whereby it has been contended by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that the payment of interest is a part of normal relief granted under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code. The respondents having taken the benefit of the money which they were not entitled to receive, the same must be returned with interest. The counsel for the applicant has further relied upon 1992 AIR (Supreme Court) 248 in Union Carbide Corporation etc. etc. Vs Union of India etc. etc.  whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the doctrine of restitution under Section 144 of Civil Procedure Code is not conferring any new substantive right to a party and the Court must see that the litigant does not feel prejudiced by the judicial process.

6.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP/JD Corporation has argued that the Executing Court  cannot go beyond the decree. Since no interest was awarded by the Hon’ble National Commission, this Commission has no jurisdiction to go beyond the jurisdiction of Hon’ble National Commission to award the interest. Therefore, the claim in the application is without any merits.

7.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

8.                The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the OPs claimed enhanced amount of Rs.5,57,908/- from the complainant/decree holder against the sale consideration of the plot of about 2500 sq. yards allotted to her by the OP/JD corporation. The said demand was challenged in the District Consumer Forum by filing a complaint which was dismissed. An appeal preferred against the order of District Forum was also dismissed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission. The complainant/applicant preferred a revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission which was decided vide order dated 02.02.2005 whereby the demand raised by the OP Corporation at the enhanced rate of Rs.594/- per square yards instead of original allotment rate of Rs.385/- per square yard was set aside. The Hon’ble National Commission further directed the JD corporation to pay interest @10% per annum from 13.07.1999 to 11.08.2003 when the possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant.

9.                The only question which remains to be answered in this case is whether the complainant/applicant is entitled to interest as claimed in the application on the amount of Rs.5,57,908/- which was deposited by the complainant with OP corporation on 21.07.2003 and returned by the OP corporation on 16.11.2021 after the revision petition was allowed by the Hon’ble National Commission. In our considered view, the Hon’ble National Commission did not grant any relief with regard to payment of interest on the amount of Rs.5,57,908/- while ordering refund of this amount to the complainant. It is well settled that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and since the relief of interest was no granted by the Hon’ble National Commission, this Commission has no power to go beyond the order of the Hon’ble National Commission to grant interest. We have also gone through the case law cited by the complainant/applicant which primarily deals with the principle of restitution enshrined in Section 144 of Civil Procedure Code. We are afraid that case laws relied upon by the complainant/decree holder  cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, considering the facts, as stated above, that the relief of interest neither agitated before the Hon’ble National Commission nor the same was granted in the revision petition. Under the circumstances, if the relief of interest was not granted by the Hon’ble National Commission, the remedy available with the applicant/decree holder is available to file a review petition before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi or a revision petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Commission being  executing court cannot grant a relief which has not been granted by the Hon’ble National Commission while deciding the revision petition of the complainant/applicant. Therefore, no ground is made out for granting interest of Rs.1,27,80,538.80 on the amount of Rs.5,57,908/-.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the application under consideration is dismissed. 

(Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Sapna Mittal Vs Punjab Small Industries                                            EA/18/49

 

Present:       Decree holder Ms. Sapna Mittal in person.

                   Sh. Maninder Khara, Advocate for JD1 to JD3.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the application for grant of interest has been dismissed. Under the circumstances, the file of this execution application is ordered to be consigned having been fully satisfied. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.