1.      These appeals arise from the following sequence of events:

2.      On 11.04.2003, the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) gave advertisement in newspapers and issued brochure in the year 2003 about Singapore Class Integrated Township for construction of 2080 flats at Pocharam (v) Ghatkesar Mandal, RR. District. The project was completed by March 2005 and the board started handing over of flats to the respective buyers. The township was re-named as Sanskruti Township.  “Residents Welfare Association” was registered vide Regd. No.1631 dated 10.09.2007 with the Registrar of Societies, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh.  On 18.01.2008, the RWA filed a complaint in CD No.3 of  2008 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad claiming compensation of Rs.95 lakhs, Rs.5000/- towards expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards agony and for directing APHB to create modern facilities and rectification of defective works among other reliefs.  Similarly, the RWA also filed another complaint case No.04 of 2008 wherein the different members of the RWA were involved.   On 11.02.2009 orders passed in CC No.3 of 2008 by the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing the APHB to attend certain works as set out, awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the members of the respondent association, who were members at the time of filing of complaint for the mental agony together with costs of Rs.10,000/- .  Similarly, the State Commission also allowed complaint CD No.04 of 2008 vide its order dated 11.02.2009 with same directions to the APHB along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation to all the members of the RWA, who were members of the Society at the time of filing the complaint and the cost of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded.  Against order dated 11.02.2009 of the State Commission passed in both the consumer complaint Nos.03 & 04 of 2008, the APHB preferred FA Nos.98 & 99 of 2009 before this Commission.  Cross appeals were also filed by the RWA in both the cases bearing No.110 of 2009 & 113 of 2009 before this Commission.   This Commission vide its order dated 28.04.2009 decided all the four appeals by passing the following order:-

“On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that once the State Commission has provided reasonable solution to the problems, in the first instance the parties should adhere to that and realize the said directions, lest the pendency of these appeal may frustrate the object behind the said directions.  Accordingly, we direct to the Housing Board to carry out the rectification work as directed by the State Commission within a period of six months.  It is stated that a representation in regards to wanting facilities and amenities, maintenance charges, etc. has already been made to the High Power Committee which is yet to decide the question.  We direct the said High Power Committee to deal with the said representation of the complainant association expeditiously and decide the same within a period of two months.  The suggestions/recommendations made by the said High Power Committee shall be carried out by the Housing Board within a period of three months from the date making of the said recommendations by the said Committee.  However, in the reckoning of the Residents’ Association, the High Power Committee has not dealt with the entire gamut and they are still unsatisfied it would be open for the association or the individual buyer(s) of the flat to pursue their remedy in accordance with law.  With these observations, all these first appeals stand disposed of.  Since the appeals stand disposed of, we direct the Registry to refund the amount deposited by the appellants as pre-requite to filing of the appeals.”

3.      On 24.06.2009, the RWA filed E.A. No.30 and 31 of 2009 before the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking directions for release of compensation as per the orders dated 11.02.2009 and also for compliance of the 32 agenda points furnished before the High Power Committee on the directions of the National Commission vide order dated 28.04.2009.

4.      The APHB in December 2010, filed an application before this Commission, to seek a clarification whether the APHB was required to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- for each member in one case and Rs.5,000/- per member in the other case along with cost of Rs.10,000/- in both the matters as directed by the State Commission in its order dated 11.02.2009 even after the disposal of appeals by order dated 28.04.2009 of this Commission.

5.      The State Commission on 25.5.2011 closed the proceedings in the execution cases reiterating the order dated 28.04.2009 and  by ordering that both the parties should appear before the High Power Committee and High Power Committee shall supervise the rectification as ordered by the State commission vide its order dated 11.02.2009.  The State Commission further ordered that both the parties shall abide by the order/clarification given by the National Commission in the application filed by the Housing Board.

6.      Against the order dated 25.5.2011 of the State Commission the RWA has preferred FA No.662 of 2012 in EA No.30 of 2009 in CD No.03 of 2008 and FA No.683 of 2012 in EA No.31 of 2009 in CD No.04/2008 before this Commission.

7. Meanwhile, this Commission vide its order dated 16.09.2011 dismissed the application for clarification of its order dated 28.04.2009 by observing that the order was clear and there existed no ambiguity and therefore, no clarification was necessary.  Thereafter, the RWA filed a permission application No.EAIA No.2618 of 2011 in EA No.30 of 2009 in CD No.3 of 2008 seeking permission to withdraw the deposited sum of Rs.1 lac with interest.  Similarly EAIA No.2619 of 2011 was filed in EA No.31 of 2009 in CD No.4 of 2008 seeking the same direction.  The State Commission vide its order dated 05.03.2012 directed the Housing Board  as under:-

This clearly establishes that the number of members at the time of filing of the complaint are 99 in C.D.No.3/2008 and 84 in C.D.No.4/2008 and as per the orders of this Commission which has been confirmed by the National Commission in FA Nos.98/2009 and 99/2009 filed by the opposite party and F.A Nos.110 and 113/2009 filed by the complainant, we are of the considered view that the order of this Commission has become final and the opposite party is directed to pay in C.D.No.3/2008: 99 x Rs.10,000/- = Rs.9,90,000/- + Rs.10,000/- towards costs i.e. Rs.10,00,000/-.  The petitioner/party in person argued that the costs have to be given to each member of the association and also claimed interest for the delayed payment of compensation.  There is no such direction regarding interest in the judgment which has become final and costs have been awarded as a lumpsum amount but not to each member of the association.  Now coming to C.D.No.4/2008 it is established that there are 84 members and therefore the opposite party is directed to pay 84 x Rs.5000/- = Rs.4,20,000/- towards compensation + Rs.10,000/- towards costs=Rs.4,30,000/-.  M. Tagore Babu Executive Engineer, APHB filed an affidavit in E.A.I.A. No.46/2011 in E.A.No.31/2009 that the petitioner herein has claimed Rs.18,30,000/- towards service charges from his members and circulated a letter to that effect.  The petitioner himself filed a letter dt. 14.7.2010 (Anexure 26) stating that his service charges and expenses equalling to the compensation granted by this Commission, should be borne by the Association.  In view of this letter, while permitting the complainant to take this amount, we direct him to file advance receipts from each of the members of the Association and receive the aforementioned amounts i.e. Rs.9,90,000/- and Rs.4,20,000/-. The petitioner/party in person is entitled to receive the costs of Rs.10,000/- awarded in each of the complaints.  For compliance, this matter is being posted to 4.4.2012.”

8.      Aggrieved by the above order dated 05.03.2012, the APHB has preferred two appeals No.188 of 2012 and 189 of 2012 in respect of two original complaints filed.

9.      On 10.08.2017, none was present on behalf of the RWA.  Last opportunity was granted to them to appear on the next date and argue the matter.  However, on the next date 18.01.2018 none appeared on behalf of the RWA and therefore, the learned counsel for the APHB was heard.

10.    In respect of appeals Nos.682  & 683 of 2012, the learned counsel for the APHB stated that in its order dated 25.5.2011 the State Commission has considered all the aspects in the matter and it has found that most of the rectifications as per orders of the State Commission or the High Power Committee have been complied with and only issue that remained unresolved was in respect of  some of the flats, whose keys were not made available to the APHB and therefore, the State Commission had ordered that as the claims and counter claims were being made for the keys, both the parties to appear before the High Power Committee to sort out the issue.  Thus, the order of the National Commission dated 28.04.2009 has been complied with and the National Commission in its order dated 28.04.2009 has finally also given liberty to the members to proceed as per law if they were not satisfied with the compliance of the order passed by the State Commission. There seems to be no merit or need to challenge order dated 25.5.2011 of the State Commission. It was further stated by the learned counsel that the order dated 25.5.2011 of the State Commission has now merged in the final order dated 5.03.2012 passed by the State Commission.  Hence on these two grounds, FA Nos.682 and 683 of 2012 have become infructuous.

11.    Coming to the FA No.188 & 189 of 2012, the learned counsel for the APHB stated that the order dated 11.02.2009 of the State Commission has been merged in the order dated 28.4.2009 of the National Commission passed in FA No.98 of 2009 & FA 99 of 2009 and therefore, there is no independent existence of the order dated 11.02.2009 of the State Commission wherein it was ordered that the cost of Rs.10,000/- in CD No.3 of 2008 and in CD No.4 of 2008 Rs.5000/- be paid to every member who was member of the Welfare Association on the date of filing of the respective complaint.   The National Commission in its final order disposing of the appeals against the order dated 11.02.2009 of the State Commission has only given direction to the High Power Committee and to members of the complainant Association and no order has been given about the compensation to be paid to the members of the Welfare Association.  Thus, no execution petition could have been filed against the order dated 11.02.2009 of the State Commission for payment of such compensation to the members as the order of the State Commission stood merged in the order of the National Commission.  To support his argument, learned counsel cited the judgment in Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the following:­

“12. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way - whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below. However, the doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view.”

44.    To sum up our conclusions are :-

(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law.”

12.    I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for APHB and examined the material on record. Coming first to FA Nos.682 & 683 of 2012 filed by the RWA against the order dated 25.05.2011 of the State Commission, I find that the State Commission in its order dated 25.5.2011 has analysed most of the shortcomings and rectifications done by the Housing Board and the proceedings of the High Power Committee. After going through all these documents the State Commission has passed a very reasoned and balanced order. 

13.    From the order 25.5.2011 of the State Commission, it is clear that if the members are not satisfied with the decision of the High Power Committee or the rectification done as per the order of the State Commission or as per the orders of High Power Committee, the members can take up the issue in accordance with law.  Moreover, the State Commission has passed the final order dated 05.03.2012 after clarification by this Commission on 16.09.2011.  Thus, in a way the order dated 25.5.2011 of the State Commission has merged in the final order dated 05.03.2012 which has been passed in the same execution cases at least for the component of compensation to be paid to members of the RWA.  Thus, from the above discussion, the FA No.682 of 2012 and FA No.683 of 2012 have become infructuous as the RWA or the members in their individual capacity may have taken recourse to the action as per law in respect of any shortcoming in the rectification done by the APHB or any shortcoming in the direction of the High Power Committee and in respect of compensation to be paid to the members as per order dated 11.2.2009 of the State Commission a final order dated 5.03.2012 has been passed by the State Commission allowing the payment of compensation.    

14.    Now in the context of FA No.188 of 2012 and FA No.189 of 2012 filed by the APHB against the order dated 5.3.3012 of the State Commission, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the order dated 11.02.2009 of the State Commission stood merged into the order dated 28.04.2011 passed by this Commission in the appeal.  In this regard, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the APHB in Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (supra) is required to be read carefully.  It clearly mentions the “the doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application.  The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view.”  In the present case the whole order dated 11.02.2009 was challenged by the APHB, however the National Commission only limited its order to the issue of rectification of shortcomings in the flats but has not touched upon the aspect of compensation awarded to members of the RWA, though it has taken note of this part of the order of the State Commission.  Then in my view, there is no finding of the National Commission on the issue of compensation awarded to the members.  Therefore, the order of the State Commission in respect of compensation will be treated as not modified by the National Commission.  Hence, it subsists.

15.    From the order dated 11.02.2009 of the State Commission, it is not clear as to on how many members this order would be applicable as it is not mentioned in the order.  Thus, without knowing the burden of such compensation, the State Commission ordered the amount of Rs.10,000/- or Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the members of the RWA who were members at the time of filing of the respective complaints.  In the order dated 05.03.2012 the State Commission has taken the number of members from some document given by the Housing Board in some meeting of High Power Committee and number of members have been taken to be 99 and 84, whereas these numbers were disputed by the Housing Board and according to the APHB there were only 9 members at the time of filing of the complaint.  Besides this, the EAIA No.2618 of 2011 and EAIA No.2619 of 2011 filed respectively in  EA Nos.30 & 31 of 2009 were filed basically for release of amount of Rs.1,45,000/- deposited with the State Commission by the APHB.  The State Commission has not clearly passed any order in this regard.  As the amounts of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.45,000/- were deposited by APHB, these amounts must have been deposited after permission from the State Commission.  Hence at that point of time, the State Commission may have allowed these amounts to be deposited on the basis of 9 members in CD No.03 of 2008 and 7 members in CD No.04 of 2008.  Cost of Rs.10,000/- seems to have been deposited in both the cases making total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively in the two complaints.

16.    As these complaint No.03 & 04 of 2008 were filed by the RWA, they are to be treated as filed under Section 12(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As such the RWA should have disclosed the names of the members on whose behalf these complaints were filed.  But, I cannot go into this question now as the order dated 11.02.2009 of the State Commission in these two complaints and order dated 28.04.2011 of this Commission passed in the two appeals have become final and execution has been preferred.  As APHB has deposited the ordered amounts after permission from the State Commission in respect of 9 and 7 members in the two complaint cases, I do not find any merit in the order of the State Commission dated 05.03.2012 passed in the execution proceedings so far as it relates to the number of members entitled to get benefit of compensation.

17.    Based on the above examination, I am of the view that the compensation as per order dated 11.02.2009 of the State Commission is payable to RWA for 9 members in CD No.03/2008 and for 7 members in CD No.04 of 2008.  The APHB has already deposited amount of Rs.1,45,000/-  with the State Commission.  If this amount has not been refunded to the RWA, the same may be released to the RWA by the State Commission.

18.    On the basis of above discussion, FA No.682 of 2012 and FA No.683 of 2012 are dismissed as having become infructuous and non-maintainable.  FA No.188 of 2012 and FA No.189 of 2012 are partly allowed and order dated 05.03.2012 of the State Commission is modified to the extent that APHB is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for only 9 members along with cost of Rs.10,000/- in CD No.03 of 2008 to the RWA and APHB shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs.45,000/- for 7 members along with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the RWA.  Thus, APHB is liable to pay total Rs.1,45,000/- in both the complaints.  As APHB has already deposited this amount with the State Commission, the same shall be released to the RWA by the State Commission if not released already to RWA.

19.    Both parties to bear their own costs.