Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Karnataka Housing Board – Appellant
Versus
K.A. Nagamani – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4631 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP(Civil) No. 6276 of 2019)
Decided on : 06-05-2019
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21(b) and 25 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 45, Rule 16 – Revision Petition – Maintainability – Execution proceeding – Right to file Revision Petition, like appeal, is a right conferred by statute – In absence of a statutory conferment, there is no inherent right to file revision – Exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) by National Commission is limited to a consumer dispute which has been filed before State Commission – Jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of 1986 Act can be exercised by National Commission only in case of a consumer dispute filed before State Commission – Ordinarily, power of revision can be exercised only when illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in decision making process of Fora below – An Order passed for enforcement, would not be an order in consumer dispute since it stands finally decided by appellate forum which has conclusively determined rights and obligations of parties – Nature of execution proceedings is materially different from nature of proceedings for adjudication of a consumer complaint – Execution proceedings are independent proceedings – Orders passed for enforcement of final order in consumer dispute cannot be construed to be orders passed in consumer dispute – There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by State Commission in execution proceedings. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, 7.3 and 7.8)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 21, Rule 10 – Execution proceeding – Scope and ambit – Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be continuation of original suit – Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of decree – Merits of claim or dispute cannot be considered during execution proceedings – They are independent proceedings initiated by decree holder to enforce decree passed in substantive dispute. (Para 7.7)
Facts of Case:
Instant Civil Appeal arises out of execution proceedings initiated by Respondent – Complainant from an Order passed by State Commission in a consumer dispute. Issue which has arisen for consideration is whether a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable before National Commission Dispute Redressal Commission against Order passed by State Commission in an execution proceeding.
Findings of Court:
National Commission erroneously allowed Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Furthermore, National Commission modified decree passed by this Court vide Order dated 19.11.2012 wherein this Court had directed Board to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/(which included an amount of Rs.3,937 which had been initially deducted by Board). National Commission has awarded Interest on the amount of Rs. 3,937/twice, by first including it in principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/; and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on same amount of Rs. 3,937/, which would amount to a double payment.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
The court in this case emphasized that relief granted by consumer fora cannot be based solely on the fact that a consumer has suffered a loss. Instead, the loss must be directly attributable to a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The order clarifies that the proceedings for enforcement or execution of a final order are distinct from the original consumer dispute, and the relief in execution proceedings is limited to the enforcement of the adjudicated rights and obligations. Therefore, a consumer cannot claim relief merely because they have incurred a loss; there must be a proven deficiency in service as per the provisions of the Act to establish entitlement to relief.
JUDGMENT
Indu Malhotra, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeal arises out of execution proceedings initiated by the Respondent - Complainant from an Order passed by the State Commission in a consumer dispute. The issue which has arisen for consideration is whether a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as "the 1986 Act") is maintainable before the National Commission Dispute Redressal Commission (herein after referred to as "National Commission") against an Order passed by the State Commission in an execution proceeding.
2. The factual matrix in which the present jurisdictional issue has been raised, is as follows:
2.1. The Respondent - Complainant applied for allotment of a HIG-B Flat under the Self-Financing Housing Scheme at Kengeri, Bangalore. The Appellant - Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") vide letter dated 25.03.1992 allotted Flat No. 116, Type B on the First Floor to the Respondent - Complainant. The Board issued a Provisional Allotment letter dated 23.04.1992 informing the Respondent - Complainant that the cost of the flat was Rs. 3,15,000 which was to be paid in the instalments as specified.
It is an admitted position that the Respondent - Complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,67,750 in four instalments.
2.2. The Board issued letter dated 24.06.1995 whereby the Respondent - Complainant was allotted another flat, in lieu of the earlier flat for which the provisional allotment had been made. The Respondent - Complainant was informed that the cost of the flat was Rs. 5,90,000. Since the Respondent - Complainant was not willing to pay the final cost demanded by the Board, she sought a refund of the amount deposited by her.
2.3. The Board refunded the amount of Rs. 2,63,813 after deducting Rs. 3,937 deposited by the Respondent - Complainant.
2.4. The Respondent - Complainant made a representation to the Board demanding refund of the amount deducted, and also Interest @ 27% p.a. on the entire amount deposited from the date of payment of each instalment, till the date of refund.
The Board however refused to accept the demand of the Respondent - Complainant.
2.5. The Respondent - Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency of service under Section 2(1) (c)(iii) of the 1986 Act before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, and prayed for compensation.
The District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006 allowed the Complaint, and directed payment of Interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750 from the date of deposit of the respective instalments, till the date of realization. The Board was also directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,937 to the Respondent - Complainant. It was directed that the amounts be paid within 45 days from the date of the Order.
2.6. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006, the Respondent - Complainant preferred Appeal No. 166 of 2007 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
The State Commission vide Order dated 06.02.2007 dismissed the Appeal of the Respondent - Complainant.
2.7. The Respondent - Complainant filed Revision Petition No. 1839 of 2007 before the National Commission.
The National Commission vide Order dated 04.08.2011 dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum.
2.8. The Respondent - Complainant filed SLP (Civil) No. 35226 - 35227 of 2011 before this Court, which was allowed, and the Order passed by the National Commission was set aside. This Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012 directed the Appellant - Board to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750 from the date of deposit till the date of realization; refund the amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been deducted by the Board; pay Rs. 50,000 towards compensation for deficiency in service, and Rs. 20,000 towards Costs of litigation to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
