JASWANT SINGH (SUBEDAR MAJOR (RETD.) Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING BOARD THROUGH ITS CEO-CUM-SECETARY NIGAM VIHAR, KASUMPTI, SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this case was taken up today, Mr. Rathore, learned Counsel for the opposite party stated at the bar that respondent has ceased to exist and all its assets and liabilities including pending litigation now vests with Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority having its Head Office at Nigam Vihar, Shimla -2 through its CEO -cum -Secretary, with the coming into force of Himachal Pradesh Housing Urban Development Authority Act, 2004. In view of this statement, opposite party is ordered to be substituted by H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority through its CEO -cum -Secretary, Nigam Vihar, Shimla -2, Office will carry out necessary correction in the record of this case.

(2.) Facts as they emerge from the record of this case are that this Commission in O.C. No. 3 of 2001 on 28.5.2002 had accepted the complaint to the limited extent of awarding 18% interest on the amount of Rs. 68,453/ - from the date of payment of last instalment i.e. 24.8.1992 till realization. Other prayer for relief as regards damages and compensation was rejected. A sum of Rs. 8,000/ - was allowed as litigation cost.

(3.) Both the parties felt aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of this Commission 28.5.2002. Opposite party filed First Appeal No. 264 of 2002 whereas complainant filed First Appeal No. 227 of 2002 before the National Commission. While issuing notice to the complainant in the appeal filed by the opposite party. National Commission on 20.8.2002 ordered payment of Rs. 2,000/ - to the complainant to defray his expenses in defending the case. Finally vide its judgment dated 21.2.2003, appeal of the opposite party was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/ -. Opposite party took up this matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7590/2004. While disposing of the appeal, it was directed that rate of interest shall be 12% and not 18%. Special Leave Petition filed by the complainant before the Supreme Court, was dismissed in limine.