Madhu Rani vs Shiva Kant Verma

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.05.2013 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 109 of 2012 - Madhu Rani Vs. Shiva Kant Verma by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum was allowed with further compensation.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed Complaint No. 157/2007 before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 5.2.2008, allowed complaint and directed OP to handover flat to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the agreement within 30 days or return Rs.7,50,000/ - with interest @ 8% p.a. pandelite till realization with compensation of Rs.5,000/ - for harassment. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed as withdrawn by learned State Commission vide order dated 27.8.2010 and revision petition filed by the complainant before National Commission was dismissed vide order dated 19.4.2011. Complainant filed Execution Case No. 42 of 2011 before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 10.7.2010 directed OP/Judgment Debtor to handover physical possession of Flat No. 2/A within 30 days. Judgment Debtor was given liberty to withdraw Rs.7,50,000/ - deposited by him in the account of Decree Holder. Appeal filed by Judgment Debtor/Petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order but while dismissing appeal, Learned State Commission further directed Judgment Debtor to pay Rs.5,000/ - per month as compensation for this period and Rs.20,000/ - were allowed as cost of litigation against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order passed by learned District Forum was without jurisdiction as it was passed by only two Members shown one Member Mrs. Meena Kumari herself as President of the District Forum, whereas she was not President of the District Forum and further submitted that inspite of having deposited deecretal amount in complainant ''s account, learned District Forum committed error in directing delivery of possession of the flat and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and further allowing Rs.5,000/ - per month as compensation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, respondent submitted that as prices of flat has increased, respondent is entitled to possession of the flat and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. Perusal of record clearly reveals that order dated 5.2.2008 passed by District forum bears signatures of President and 2 other Members in which Smt. Meena Kumari has been shown as Member whereas order dated 10.7.2012 has been signed by Meena Kumari depicting herself to be President. Leaned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Meena Kumari was only Member of District Forum and she was not President of District Forum; even then, she has signed the order in the capacity of President. Respondent has not submitted on this point whether Meena Kumari was ever appointed President of District Forum or not. If Meena Kumari was only Member then order dated 10.7.2012 could not have been passed by Meena Kumari depicting herself to the President of District Forum and if order dated 10.7.2012 has been passed by only 2 Members without President of the District Forum, this order itself is against the provisions of law because as per Section 14 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, every order of District Forum has to be signed by the President and Member or Members who conducted the proceedings. In such circumstances, if order of District Forum is without jurisdiction, impugned order passed by Ld. State Commission is to be set aside.

PERUSAL of record makes it clear that as per original order dated 5.2.2008, petitioner was directed to handover flat or return Rs.7,50,000/ - with interest @ 8% p.a. pandelite till realization within a period of 30 days. Record further reveals that petitioner deposited Rs.7,50,000/ - in respondent ''s account on 4.3.2008, meaning thereby within a period of 30 days principal amount had already been deposited. No doubt, there is delay in depositing Rs.5,000/ - cost and interest pandelite. It appears that Rs.5,000/ - has been deposited on 6.8.2008 and again Rs.37,000/ - were deposited on 11.8.2008 and Rs.3,000/ - were deposited on 12.8.2008. It appears that interest amount was deposited after 5 months. Merely because there was delay of sometime in depositing interest amount, learned District Forum committed error in directing the petitioner to handover possession of the flat and withdraw Rs.7,50,000/ -. District Forum has not considered deposit of aforesaid amounts against interest and cost.

LEARNED State Commission while upholding order of District Forum further allowed Rs.5,000/ - per month for this period as compensation which could not have been allowed by learned State Commission beyond the scope of decree in original complaint. As compliance of the order of District Forum dated 5.2.2008 has been made by the petitioner, Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.5.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 109/2012 - Madhu Rani Vs. Shiva Kant Verma and order of District Forum dated 10.7.2012 passed in Execution Case No. 42 of 2011 - Shiva Kant Verma Vs. Madhu Rani are set aside and Execution Petition stands dismissed as satisfied with no order as to costs.