Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 188 (HP)

H. P. NAGAR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. P. P. MEHRA

2001-08-08

B.K.TAIMNI, C.L.CHAUDHRY, D.P.WADHWA, J.K.MEHRA, RAJYALAKSHMI RAO

body2001
ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member :- This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner, HP. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran against the order in appeal passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the District Forum in execution of its order dated 5.9.1994. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant, Shri P.P. Mehra filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming damages for delayed delivery of possession of the flat. The District Forum after hearing the parties passed the order directing the petitioner to pay interest @ 18% on the deposited amount from 1.1.1989 to 10.5.1995 i.e., the date of handing over the possession. On an appeal being filed by the petitioner, the State Commission after catering for the grace period, awarded interest @ 18% but from 1.1.1990 instead of 1.1.1989. 3. When the order thus passed was not complied the complainant went in execution. At this stage a new plea was taken by the petitioner that on account of late deliver in possession relief has already been given by the Department/Vikas Pradhikaran for the period from 1.1.1989 to 30.6.1992 by the petitioner and if now the order passed by Consumer Forum is effected that it will amount to double payment of interest @ 18% hence this period, for which interest has been voluntarily given to the complainant, must be set off. After hearing the parties, the District Forum dismissed this plea of the petitioner and an appeal filed by the petitioner against this order in execution also met with same fate, hence this petition. 4. Two points are raised by the petitioner before us. Firstly that the petitioner Authority (Pradhikaran) cannot be penalized by directing them to pay interest for delay in handing over the possession especially when under the scheme there is no provision for payment of interest in such circumstances and secondly payment of interest for two periods -a certain period 1.1.1989 to 30.6.1992 shall overlap, amounting to double payment of interest. 5. We have seen the material on record and see that the order dated 24.12.1995 passed by the State Commission in appeal against the order of District Forum dated 7.9.1994 became final as no revision petition was filed against the order. The final order thus was to pay interest @ 18% from 1.1.1990 to 10.5.1995. 5. We have seen the material on record and see that the order dated 24.12.1995 passed by the State Commission in appeal against the order of District Forum dated 7.9.1994 became final as no revision petition was filed against the order. The final order thus was to pay interest @ 18% from 1.1.1990 to 10.5.1995. It is for the execution of this order that the complainant moved the District Forum and what the District Forum again ordered is payment of the amount as per orders of the State Commission dated 24.12.1995. The District in execution cannot go behind the decree at the execution stage.. The original order had become final. When the District Forum and the State Commission had passed orders on 7.9.1994 and 24.12.1995 respectively, where was the needed to give parallel relief by the petitioner themselves for a part period. We also see that relief granted is for the period from 1.1.1989 to 30.6.1992. There is no material on record to show as to when such a decision was taken by the authority. There is no such plea by the petitioner in the original proceedings. In any case that has no bearing and can have no bearing on the order of the State Commission which became final. There is not even a hint in the earlier proceedings that this relief is under presser proposed to be given. It is for the petitioner not to grant the relief in this case but he cannot escape his liability to carry out the direction contained in the final order. Where is the question of recovering/adjusting this amount. It is the case of the petitioner that they had granted relief during the pendency of the original proceedings - there is no such proof. It is the case of the petitioner that amount was short recovered/set off during the period of final order dated 25.12.1995 and the date of filing the Execution Petition. In that case they themselves are to be blamed - as they had no business to interject of their own, once the Consumer Forums had passed the orders. 6. We have already held in HUDA and others v. Darsh Kumar and others, 2001(2) CPC 635 N.C. that for delayed hand in of .over the possession the Consumer is entitled to interest. In G.D.A. v. Union of /India 2000(3) Com. 6. We have already held in HUDA and others v. Darsh Kumar and others, 2001(2) CPC 635 N.C. that for delayed hand in of .over the possession the Consumer is entitled to interest. In G.D.A. v. Union of /India 2000(3) Com. J. 402 SC, the Honble Supreme Court has already held that the allottee has a right to get interest on his deposited amount even when there is no such provision in the scheme. 7. We see no merit in this contention raised by the petitioner and find no grounds to interfere in the orders in execution passed by both the lower forums. This petition is dismissed. No orders as costs. -