AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We heard learned counsel for the revisionist improvement trust, and perused the entire material on record.
The previous Order dated 18.09.2019 of this Commission reads as below:
Dated: 18.09.2019
ORDER
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist improvement trust. Perused the record, including inter alia the impugned Order of the State Commission and the Order of the District Forum.
The complaint was filed before the District Forum in the year 2014. We are now in the year 2019.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 09.09.2014 had allowed the complaint.
The State Commission vide its Order dated 07.03.2017 had dismissed the appeal.
This revision petition has been filed against the said Order dated 07.03.2017 of the State Commission.
The two fora below have arrived at concurrent findings.
Vide this Commission's Order dated 07.06.2019, the revision petition was dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.
The said Order dated 07.06.2019 was recalled vide this Commission's Order dated 16.07.2019 and the case was restored to its original number:
Dated: 16.07.2019
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on M.A. No. 263 of 2019, which is an application for recalling the Order dated 07.06.2019 vide which this case was dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.
For the reasons stated therein, to avoid embarrassment to the learned counsel, and in the interest of justice, the Order dated 07.06.2019 (dismissing the case in default for lack of prosecution) is recalled and the case is restored to its original number.
Arguments were partly heard on the merit in the revision petition. The District Forum vide its Order dated 09.09.2014 had allowed the complaint on merit. The State Commission vide its Order dated 07.03.2017 had dismissed the appeal on merit. Prima-facie no merit was seen in the revision petitioner's case, filed before us under section 21(b) of the Act 1986. During the course of the arguments, however, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he would like to seek instructions in this regard. He may do so within four weeks from today.
List on 22.08.2019.
We make it explicit that we have as yet not directed that notice be issued afresh to the respondent - complainant.
During arguments today, learned counsel submits on instructions that the petitioner improvement trust would like to argue its case on merit.
He further submits that the statute under which the revisionist improvement trust functions does not allow for refund, with or without deduction, of the amount deposited by the respondent - complainant with the revisionist improvement trust. A copy of the statute was not available today with the learned counsel, nor has it been filed with the memo of petition.
In the facts and unusual specificities of the case, we deem it appropriate that:
[a] the entire decretal amount (with clear and cogent calculation sheet) shall be deposited before the District Forum at the earliest, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR initially for a period of one year to be renewed regularly; the amount, if any, already deposited before either of the two fora below may be adjusted therein; and, contingent to the entire decretal amount being so deposited i.e. subsequent to the said deposit being duly made before the District Forum, the further operation of the impugned Order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
and
[b] the chief executive of the revisionist improvement trust shall file a report on the whole matter, based on official record, alongwith a copy of the statute under which the revisionist improvement trust functions, within six weeks, without fail, through counsel.
List on 28.11.2019 for further arguments.
It is again made explicit that we have as yet not directed that notice be issued afresh to the respondent - complainant.
'Dasti', in addition, at the request of the learned counsel for the revisionist improvement trust.
The revision petition was earlier dismissed in default for lack of prosecution vide Order dated 07.06.2019, which Order was recalled vide Order dated 16.07.2019 and the case was restored to its original number (the said Order of 16.07.2019 is quoted in the Order dated 18.09.2019 reproduced in para 2 above).
The Order of 18.09.2019 inter alia contained the following directions:
In the facts and unusual specificities of the case, we deem it appropriate that:
[a] the entire decretal amount (with clear and cogent calculation sheet) shall be deposited before the District Forum at the earliest, which shall be kept in the shape of an FDR initially for a period of one year to be renewed regularly; the amount, if any, already deposited before either of the two fora below may be adjusted therein; and, contingent to the entire decretal amount being so deposited i.e. subsequent to the said deposit being duly made before the District Forum, the further operation of the impugned Order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
and
[b] the chief executive of the revisionist improvement trust shall file a report on the whole matter, based on official record, alongwith a copy of the statute under which the revisionist improvement trust functions, within six weeks , without fail , through counsel .
(emphasis supplied)
In respect of the first direction, for the revisionist improvement trust to deposit the entire decretal amount before the District Forum, learned counsel submits that he is not aware whether the said direction has been complied with or not.
Proof of deposit has not been filed.
In respect of the second direction, for the chief executive of the revisionist improvement trust to file a report on the whole matter, based on official record, along with a copy of the statute under which the revisionist improvement trust functions, learned counsel submits that the requisite report has not been filed.
No application has been filed by the chief executive to explain the reasons for not filing the report, or to seek (reasonable) further time therefor.
Failure and omission to comply with the directions contained in the previous Order dated 18.09.2019 is not viewed favourably.
Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission has concomitant responsibility of professional conduct of its case, and moreso when the revision petition has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below (which had respectively allowed the complaint and dismissed the appeal with cost).
Professional conduct of its case by the revisionist improvement trust is patently lacking.
On the earlier date i.e. 18.09.2019 learned counsel for the revisionist improvement trust had inter alia made the following submission:
He further submits that the statute under which the revisionist improvement trust functions does not allow for refund, with or without deduction, of the amount deposited by the respondent - complainant with the revisionist improvement trust. A copy of the statute was not available today with the learned counsel, nor has it been filed with the memo of petition.
(emphasis supplied)
Learned counsel submits that he has with him a copy of the statute under which the revisionist improvement trust functions, which is The Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922.
On a request from the bench, to show the specific provision in the said Act of 1922, or in the Rules framed thereunder, which do not allow for refund, with or without deduction, of the amount deposited by the respondent - complainant with the revisionist improvement trust, learned counsel could not show any such provision.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 09.09.2014 had allowed the complaint and made the following award:
In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.16,24,450/-, the amount deposited by the complainant with opposite party trust alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing of the present complaint till payment. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses.
The State Commission vide its Order dated 07.03.2017 had dismissed the appeal filed by the improvement trust with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The two fora below arrived at concurrent findings . We find the Order dated 07.03.2017 of the State Commission as well as the Order dated 09.09.2014 of the District Forum to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. Within the ambit and purview of section 21(b) of the Act, we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.
We note that the respondent - complainant had deposited a total amount of Rs. 16,24,450/-with the revisionist improvement trust between 2012 to 2013.
No refund, with or without deduction, with or without interest, has been made by the improvement trust.
We are now in 2019.
The Statement and Objects of the Act 1986 says of "speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes". The Act is for "better protection of the interests of consumers".
The District Forum, in effect, has directed that the amount deposited by the complainant with the improvement trust be refunded to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum and Rs. 3000/- as cost of litigation.
The State Commission has dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
We find the award made by the District Forum to be just and equitable. We also find the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the State Commission to be just and reasonable.
With the above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed on merit as well as for failure and omission to comply with the directions of this Commission.
The award made by the District Forum, and as upheld by the State Commission with cost of Rs.10,000/-, is confirmed. The State Commission's impugned Order is sustained.
The District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law for failure or omission in compliance.
A copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the District Forum, to the State Commission, to the complainant and to the chief executive of the revisionist improvement trust, within three days from today.
'Dasti', in addition.