HOUSING BOARD HARYANA vs Susheela Sharma

PETITIONERS have filed the present revision petition challenging order dated 28.5.2009 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short State Commission) vide which appeal of the petitioners was dismissed.

THE brief facts of the case are that entire installments of house No.156 (now No.64) Sector 11, Panchkula, which was allotted on 25.7.1980, were paid through respondent No.3. THE Estate Officer raised demand of Rs.4,126/- on account of difference of installment payable in 4 installments from 1.12.1984 to 1.3.1985 vide letters dated 22.10.1982, 17.11.1984 and 28.12.1984. Likewise, a notice for Rs.1141/- dated 28.12.1984 was also issued. Petitioners also raised a demand of Rs.25,060/- on 6.7.1987 vide letter No.2355 dated 6.7.2007, which was stayed by them, vide letter dated 28.8.1987. However, a demand of Rs.59,191/- was raised after rendering the account and adding compound interest. In view of the directions issued by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, respondent/complainant deposited Rs.30,800/- on 31.3.02, Rs.27,300/- on 24.3.2007 and Rs.7,670/- on 27.3.2007. The said house was purchased by the respondent No.1/complainant and she had paid all due amount whatsoever were claimed by the petitioner including the amount of interest of Rs.51,500/-. On her request, petitioner refunded Rs.21,908/- but deducted Rs.29,592/-. Hence, respondent No.1 filed a complaint before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, Haryana (for short District Forum).

Petitioners in the written statement asserted that respondent No.1 has got no right, title and authority to challenge the charging of interest etc. as there was no privity of contract between respondent No.1 and the petitioner. Thus, no amount is refundable to respondent No.1 as alleged, what to say of Rs.21,908/-.

DISTRICT Forum, vide its order dated 4.2.2008 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to refund Rs.29,592/- and Rs.190/- (which were deposited in excess by the complainant) with interest at the rate of 10% per annum w.e.f. the date of deposit till actual realization on both the above amounts. Besides, the complainant was also allowed a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, petitioners challenged the same before State Commission. Vide impugned order, State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.

IT is contended by ld. counsel for petitioners that reason for charging the compound interest by petitioner was that it had been compelled to pay interest of HUDCO on quarterly basis and to HUDA on yearly compound basis. Thus, petitioners shall suffer loss of interest, in case, it charges simple interest from the allottees and, this has been done in pursuant to the letter dated 23.3.1987 issued by of the Chief Accounts Officer, Housing Board Haryana. On the other hand, it has been contended by ld. counsel for the respondent that the latter dated 23.3.1987 is not applicable in the present case as the allotment was made in the year 1980 and the Circular which was issued after seven years, has no force in the eyes of law and cannot be effective retrospectively. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short Act). It is well settled that the powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only, if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

RECENTLY, Honble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ; Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.

IN the light of above decision of the Apex court, it is to be seen as to whether present revision petition is maintainable or not. In impugned order, State Commission has observed ; The controversy involved in the case is whether the appellant Housing Board can charge the compound interest on the amount due from the complainant or not ? Learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant has relied upon the judgment dated 8.3.2007 of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed in CWP No.9662 of 2000, wherein the Honble High Court has held that the petitioner can be charged only simple interest of 11.5%. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in FA No.2131 of 2008 titled HUDA Vs. Bhupati Narain decided on 23.12.2008. The ratio of the above citations is fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In this view of the matter, we do not think it a fit case for any interference in the impugned order, which is under challenge in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed.

In the complaint filed in the District Forum, respondent No.1 has made following averments ; whereas the Housing Board Authorities have worked out the compound interest @ 12% on quarterly basis, which is quite illegal, void, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Thus, entire deducted amount of Rs.29,592/- needs to be refunded with interest.

IN response to above averments, petitioners in their written statement have stated that : The penalty and interest has been charged rightly and correctly as per Housing Board policy and instructions framed in this regard from time to time and the complainant has got no right, title and authority to challenge the same. There is no specific denial to the above averments made in the complaint nor there is any whisper of any policy authorizing, petitioners to charge compound interest @ 12% on quarterly basis.

SINCE, there is no plea in the written statement of the petitioners with regard to any policy authorizing them to charge compound interest @ 12% on quarterly basis, now, petitioners are estopped from taking such plea and that too in the revision. Moreover, there are concurrent findings of the facts by two fora below which are based on sound reasoning. In Narsingh Singh through LRs & Ors. Vs. Shanti Devi through LRs & Ors.2010 (115) DRJ 601. Delhi High Court observed ; It is well settled that where two Courts below have given a concurrent findings of facts, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not disturb the findings even if there is some mistake committed in appreciation of some part of evidence. Under Article 227, this Court does not correct the mistakes of law or mistakes of facts. The intervention of the this Court under Article 227 has to be only in those exceptional cases where the fora below had either not exercised their jurisdiction or had acted beyond jurisdiction or had ignored the well-settled legal proposition and acted contrary to law. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Act.

PETITIONERS have filed this revision petition just to waste its money and energy as well as the precious time of this Commission. After having two adverse findings, petitioners ought not have filed this petition.

TIME and again, the Apex Court and this Commission have observed that Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings would be advised not to waste public money, unnecessarily on avoidable and wholly frivolous litigation, such as the present one. Since, two fora below have given detailed and reasoned orders which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, the present petition is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only).

Petitioners are directed to deposit the cost of Rs.20,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within thirty days. In case, petitioners fail to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. List the matter for compliance on 30.5.2011.