Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Chairman, Faridkot Improvement ... vs Amarjeet Singh And Anr on 3 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061702
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:061702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111
CWP-10157-2024
Date of decision: 03.05.2024
THE CHAIRMAN, FARIDKOT IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER
......Petitioner
VERSUS
AMARJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER
.......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate for
Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate
for the petitioner
(Through Video Conferencing)
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present writ petition is for seeking quashing of the
order dated 12.07.2023 (Annexure P-8) passed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi in FA No. 94 of
2019.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the
petitioner-Improvement Trust floated a scheme for allotment of residential
plots in Baba Jeewan Singh Nagar in Faridkot near Ferozepur Road, by
issuing an advertisement in multiple newspapers, in the year, 2013. The
respondent No.1 applied for plot under the aforementioned scheme and was
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061702
successful in allotment of a plot measuring 300 Sq. Yards, by way of draw
of lots. A letter of allotment was issued in favour of the respondent on
02.04.2014. An agreement for sale of the plot No. 143 measuring 300 Sq.
Yards was executed for a total sale consideration of Rs. 24,75,000/-. The
petitioner-Improvement Trust contends that he had requested the Water
Supply and Sewerage Department to send the layouts for approving and
carrying out the work on project, however, no reply was received whereafter
repeated reminders were sent by it. The resolutions were also passed by the
petitioner-Improvement Trust and the same were forwarded to the Secretary
of the Local Government for approval, which was eventually granted on
07.10.2015. The work of development was eventually allotted to M/s Shiva
Enterprises on 20.04.2016 and other ancillary works were allotted to
different Construction and Cooperative Societies.
3. It is submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid
construction work at the project, the respondent-Consumer filed a complaint
on 14.11.2017 alleging that no development had taken place at the allotment
site and that the agreed time limit for raising construction on the site was 36
months from the date of allotment letter and that the same had expired. The
allottee accordingly moved a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Punjab. As no reply was filed by the petitioner-
Improvement Trust, the right of the petitioner to file written statement was
struck off vide order dated 30.07.2018. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the National Commission. Notice was issued in
the above said appeal on 12.12.2018 and the State Commission was directed
to defer pronouncement of the orders by two weeks. The said appeal was
eventually allowed and the petitioner-Trust was permitted to file written
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061702
statement vide order dated 20.12.2018. The petitioner-trust filed an
application before the State Commission to apprise about the order passed
by the Hon'ble National Commission, however, even thereafter the said
application was dismissed vide order dated 02.01.2019. Aggrieved thereof,
an appeal was filed yet again by the petitioner-Trust bearing FA No. 94 of
2019. The said appeal was further disposed of by the National Commission
vide order dated 12.07.2023 directing the petitioner to refund the entire
amount paid by the respondent-Consumer.
4. Hence, the present appeal.
5. Hence It is contended by the petitioner that the Coordiante
Bench of the National Commission had disposed of various similar revision
petitions bearing RP No. 2023/2017 titled "Faridkot Improvement Trust
versus Naresh Kumar" as well as FA No. 1342 of 2018 titled "The
Faridkot Improvement Trust versus Navdeep Goyal' wherein interest @
10% per annum is being awarded and the litigation cost was kept at Rs.
25,000/-, however, in the present case, the interest has been awarded @
12% per annum while the litigation expenses have been awarded at Rs.
50,000/-. He contends that a parity has not been maintained by the Hon'ble
National Commission and interest, as at the rate awarded by the Coordinate
Bench, ought to have been awarded in the present case also. It is further
submitted that SLP (C). No.40400-2023 was filed by the petitioner-
Improvement Trust against the above decision of the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, however, the same was withdrawn to file
the present writ petition in terms of the judgment dated 26.07.2023 passed in
SLP (Civil) No. 5263 of 2023 titled M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance
Co. Ltd. versus Suresh Chand Jain and another"
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061702
6. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that he confines his
prayer only to the extent of the excess rate of interest that has been awarded
by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 94 of
2019 whereby the petitioner-Improvement Trust has been burdened with
interest liability at the rate of 12% per annum and has been burdened with
litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- which are on the higher side
and ought to be reduced.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and have gone through the order passed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal.
8. It is evident that the National Commission was informed about
the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No. 1342 of 2018
titled as 'The Faridkot Improvement Trust versus Navdeep Goyal' dated
16.08.2022, and that the relief in the present case has also been directed in
terms of the said award which had been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The operative part of the impugned award reads thus:-
"7. In view of the aforesaid submissions made at the bar
and the circumstances of the case, it is deemed fit to modify the
award made by the State Commission to the extent and effect
that (i) the entire deposited amount of the complainant with the
opposite parties shall be refunded along with interest @ 10%
per annum from the date of deposits till actual refund of the
said amount, (ii) the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-
is also awarded and shall be paid to the complainant, (iii) the
entire payment shall be made within eight weeks from today,
failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 12% per
annum. The amount, if any, deposited in compliance of this
Commission's Order dated 28.02.2019 shall be released to the
complainant along with the interest accrued thereupon. The
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061702
residual amount shall be made good by the opposite party
within eight weeks from today, failing which the complainant
would be at liberty to approach the executing court for recovery
of the same. On receipt of such an execution application of the
State Commission shall undertake execution, for 'enforcement'
and for 'penalty', as per the law.
9. A perusal of the aforesaid impugned award shows that the
interest has actually been awarded by the National Commission @ 10% and
that the interest of 12% is attracted only in an event the payment is not made
within the prescribed time schedule. Hence, it is incorrect that the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission awarded a higher rate of interest,
rather, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission afforded an
opportunity to the petitioner-Improvement Trust to release the amount in a
time bound manner with 10% interest and that an inordinate delay in release
of dues attracted a higher rate of interest. The petitioner-Improvement Trust
has failed to assign any cogent reason as to why it failed to comply with the
said Award passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission. Moreover, it is not in dispute that identical relief was also
awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the
matter of "The Faridkot Improvement Trust versus Navdeep Goyal"
(supra) against which SLP No. 41614 of 2022 was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The case of the respondent was placed at par with the above.
Once the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has passed its
award at parity with the case of Navdeep Goyal (supra), the said award can
not be impugned solely on the ground that parity should have been with
another case. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has
granted parity with the case of Navdeep Goyal and it cannot be said to be an
illegality or impropriety.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061702
10. Under the given circumstances, I do not find that there is any
gross illegality, impropriety or perversity in the award passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The High Court does
not exercise an appellate jurisdiction against the award passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and it merely acts as a
revisional authority on such awards. The evidence and contentions of the
petitioner having already been appreciated by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission in the appeal thus, the High Court would
not ordinarily re-visit the evidence and substitute its opinion for that of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
11. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The award
passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is
affirmed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
MAY 03, 2024 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
