AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Revision Petition No.RP/17/125.
Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No.3/petitioner is a registered trust. Petitioner trust entered into agreement on 9.4.1984 with respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 for development of the part of the land measuring 1,36,000 sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-. On 24.4.1984 permission was given by the Charitable Commissioner for alienation of the land. Later on opposite party No.2 developed the land and sold the flats to individuals who later on formed a housing society represented by respondent No.1 and same was registered on 29.09.1992.
This Society filed a consumer complaint bearing No. PDF/451/11 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (in short 'the District Forum') praying that the petitioner be directed to execute the deed of conveyance of the land in favour of the society. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party No.3 by claiming that the permission of the Charitable Commissioner was granted with the condition that the conveyance deed will be executed in favour of individual flat owners. However, the District Forum, vide its order dated 28.02.2011passed the following order:-
"1. The complaint of the complainant is partly admitted.
2 The final conveyance deed should be given by the respondent No.1, 2 and 3 to the complainant society individually or jointly within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only) should be paid by the respondent No.1,2 and 3 individually or jointly to the complainant as compensation for mental and physical stress and Rs.1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only) as the cost of complaint within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
The copies of the order may be provided to both the parties free of cost."
The complainant filed an execution application before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 04.03.2015 passed the following order in the execution application No.EA/13/31:-
"The respondent No.3 today is asking for extension of period in this case for implementation. The said case being very old it is pending for implementation. Hence, on the condition of penalty at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for delay, the extension period is being given to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.1 and 3 has given today for the expenses in the order of the original complaint at the rate of Rs.500/- by each. For the remaining compliance, hearing adjourned to further dated 22/4/2015."
Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party No.3 preferred revision petition No.17/125 before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the State Commission.
Hence the present revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party No.3 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant did not appear inspite of notice. However, respondent No.1 has sent written submissions, which was taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in order to comply with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner applied before the Charitable Commissioner to give permission for conveying the land in favour of the Society as the original permission was only to convey the land in favour of individual members. This permission was granted by the order of the Charitable Commissioner on 29.07.2015. The petitioner immediately submitted the draft of the conveyance deed before the District Forum and the same was taken on record vide its order dated 26.08.2015. An application for waiver of penalty was also submitted before the District Forum as the order of the District Forum dated 28.02.2011 was already complied with. An objection was later raised that instead of conveyance deed now the draft of lease deed was to be filed and accordingly the draft of lease deed was also submitted before the District Forum on 23.09.2015 and the same is duly recorded by the District Forum in its order dated 23.09.2015. It was prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the District Forum dated 28.02.2011 was accordingly complied by 23.09.2015 and therefor, no penalty should be payable by the petitioner after this date.
It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 in his objection sent by post has raised fresh issues by giving references to the civil suits filed by the complainant against the petitioner and other opposite parties for submitting the revised plans and seeking approval for the same. It was argued that this is totally a new issue and was not raised at any point of time before the District Forum or the State Commission when the main complaint case was going on or when the execution application was decided.
It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the executing court has only to see the final order which is to be executed and therefore, in the execution proceedings or in the execution appeals or revisions no fresh or other issues can be seen except for execution of the main final order. In the present case, the order to be executed is the order of the District Forum dated 28.02.2011 and according to that order only drafts were to be submitted and the same have been submitted on 23.09.2015. The complainant society is not signing the draft lease deed submitted by the petitioner on the pretext of pending civil suit. If the complainant has started a new litigation in the civil court, the petitioner should not suffer for the same in the execution proceedings.
Leaned counsel for the respondent No.2 also supported averments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 as well as seen papers sent by respondent No.1/complainant. It is clear from the order dated 28.02.2011 of the District Forum that the order was only in respect of giving the conveyance deed to the complainant. As the conveyance deed (now the lease deed) has already been submitted by the petitioner before the District Forum and the complainant is delaying in execution of the lease deed, the compliance on the part of the petitioner seems to be completed. District Forum vide its order dated 26.08.2015 has clearly mentioned that the conveyance deed has been filed and order dated 23.09.2015 of the District Forum clearly mentions that the lease deed has been filed by the petitioner. So far as the pendency of the civil suit is concerned, the subject matter is different and we are of the view that in the execution proceedings only the compliance of the final order is to be seen. Thus, we conclude that the order of the District Forum dated 28.02.2011stands complied by the petitioner atleast from 23.09.2015 and therefore, there should be no penal charges @ Rs.500/- per day as ordered by the District Forum vide order dated 04.03.2015 beyond 23.09.2015.
Based on the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the State Commission is set aside. It is ordered that the penal charges of Rs.500/- per day as ordered by the District Forum vide its order dated 04.03.2015 shall not be payable by the petitioner beyond 23.09.2015.