Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Chairman Faridkot Improvement ... vs Amarjeet Singh And Anr on 5 September, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
LPA No.2138 of 2024 (O&M) & other connected cases
#1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. LPA No.2138 of 2024 (O&M)
The Chairman, Faridkot Improvement Trust & Anr
......Appellants
Versus
Amarjeet Singh and Anr
.....Respondents
2. LPA No.2136 of 2024 (O&M)
The Chairman, Faridkot Improvement Trust & Anr
......Appellants
Versus
Ravinder Jain and Anr
.....Respondents
3. LPA No.2129 of 2024 (O&M)
The Chairman, Faridkot Improvement Trust & Anr
......Appellants
Versus
Banu Singh @ Babu Singh and Anr
.....Respondents
4. LPA No.2128 of 2024 (O&M)
The Chairman, Faridkot Improvement Trust & Anr
......Appellants
Versus
Nirmal Singh and Anr
.....Respondents
Date of decision: 05.09.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokolia, Advocate for the appellants.
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J (ORAL)
CM No.5070,5065, 5041 & 5038-LPA-2024
Prayer is for condonation of 86 days delay respectively in filing the
appeal.
For the reasons stated in the applications, which are supported by
affidavit, the same are allowed. Delay of 86 days in filing the appeals are
condoned.
MANOJ KUMAR
2024.09.10 04:04 CM stands disposed of.
LPA No.2138 of 2024 (O&M) & other connected cases
#2#
1. Since the material facts are analogous and the issue involved in all
these four petitions is similar, they are being decided by a common order. For the
sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from LPA No.2138 of 2024, titled
The Chairman, Faridkot Improvement Trust and another vs. Amarjeet Singh and
another.
2. In the present appeal, appellants have challenged impugned judgment
dated 03.05.2024 passed by learned Single Judge vide which CWP No.10157 of
2024 filed by the appellants-Trust has been dismissed.
3. The challenge in principle before the learned Single Judge was laid to
order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi in FA No.94 of 2019 (Annexure P-9) whereby
while disposing of the appeal filed by the appellant-Trust on a concession given by
counsel for the allottees, the reduction of rate of interest was made from 12 % to
10% per annum in terms of earlier orders dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed
by the Commission i.e FA No.1342 of 2018 titled The Faridkot Improvement
Trust vs. Navdeep Goyal. There was a conditional clause incorporated in the
said judgment that if the entire payment is not made within eight weeks from the
date of order, then the amount shall attract interest @ 12% per annum. The cost of
litigation was fixed at Rs.50,000/- whereas earlier, compensation had been fixed at
Rs.75,000/-.
4. It is further noticed that Navdeep Goyal's case was taken upto
Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.5259-5262/2020 but both the appeals were
dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2023.
The appellants-Trust directly approached the Apex Court against the
order of the Commission by filing SLP (Diary No.) 40400/2023 (Annexure P-9),
MANOJ KUMAR
2024.09.10 04:04
LPA No.2138 of 2024 (O&M) & other connected cases
#3#
in a bunch of cases which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach
the High Court for appropriate relief.
5. Learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition noticed that a
complaint as such had been filed by the respondent-consumer on 14.11.2017
alleging that no development had been initiated at the allotment site by the Trust
regarding the Scheme, which had been floated in the year 2013 and whereby a plot
had been allotted also. Resultantly, vide order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the
National Commission in appeal, the appellant-Trust had been directed refund of
the entire amount paid by the respondent-consumer along with interest @ 10% per
annum from the date of deposit till actual refund of the said amount besides
awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation while modifying the award of
the State Commission on the basis of consent of the counsel. It is noticed by
learned Single Judge that once the matter was covered as per the earlier orders
passed by the National Consumer in Navdeep Goyal's case (supra) and once the
Commission had granted parity, there was no illegality or irregularity in the order
passed by the Commission. It was noticed that High Court was not exercising its
powers as an appellate jurisdiction and only was to set aside any illegality or
perversity in the awards passed by the Commission and the writ petition was,
accordingly, dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the rate of interest of
12% is not justified.
7. We do not find any valid ground to interfere in the order of the courts
below. The additional interest is being borne by the Trust on account of its own
inability to pay the amount within the prescribed period and by only filing
unnecessary writ petitions and appeals, even though the issue stands finalised upto
MANOJ KUMAR
2024.09.10 04:04
LPA No.2138 of 2024 (O&M) & other connected cases
#4#
the Apex Court in a similar case. Rather than paying the consumer his dues
unnecessarily litigation is being resorted to by the Trust.
We do not find any merit in the present appeals warranting intervention with the
impugned order of learned Single Judge.
8. Hence all the four appeals are dismissed.
9. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
10. A photo copy of this order be placed on all the connected files.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
September 05, 2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
manoj JUDGE
MANOJ KUMAR
2024.09.10 04:04
