Haryana Urban Development
Authority Vs. Dr. Jai Bhagwan & Anr [2004] Insc 579 (27 September 2004)
S. N. Variava & B. P.
Singh S. N. Variava, J.
This Appeal is against a one paragraph Order dated 16th October, 2001 of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which reads as follows:
"In the case notice was issued to the Respondent limited to rate of
interest only in view of our decision in H.U.D.A. vs. Darsh Kumar, Revision
Petition No. 1197/98, the Revision Petition is dismissed." On 16th October 1995, the Respondents were allotted a Nursing Home site in Sector 23/23A,
Urban Estate, Gurgaon for consideration of Rs.2,145/- per square yard. On 22nd
December, 2003 the Respondents were then offered an alternate site No. NH-1,
Sector 46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon for consideration of Rs.3,606/- per square
yard. This was accepted by the Respondents without prejudice to their rights.
The Respondent then filed a complaint. On these facts, the District Forum
directed that the alternate site was to be given at the same rate as the
original site. The District Forum further ordered that the Appellants shall
adjust the amount of Rs.1,82,625/-, deposited by the Respondents, towards
future installments.
The State Forum dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order of the District
Forum. The Appellants went in Revision before the National Commission. The
National Commission dismissed the Revision.
As the Appellants did not comply with the Orders, an Execution Application
was taken out. By Order dated 22nd May, 2000 the Appellants were directed to
comply with the Orders and were also directed to pay interest at 15% per annum
on amounts deposited by the Respondent.
Against the Order dated 22nd May, 2000, an Appeal was filed before the State
Forum. The Appeal was dismissed on 3rd November, 2000.
Against the Order of 3rd November, 2000, a Revision was filed before the
State Forum which has been dismissed by the impugned one paragraph Order.
A perusal of the Order of the National Commission reveals that the National
Commission had not realized that the Revision was against Orders passed in
Execution Proceedings. It does appear that the National Commission has
mechanically and without application of mind passed the above mentioned one
paragraph Order. Thus the Order of the National Commission would normally
require to be set aside. We however find that the Orders of the District Forum
and State Forum in the Execution Application are correct and require no
interference. The Appellants had lost, in the earlier round, up to the National
Commission. That Order was not appealed against. Thus that Order has become
final. The Order directing execution is in accordance with the earlier Orders.
Accordingly, we dismiss this Appeal with no order as to costs.
Back
