JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. GEETA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 18.10.2010 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, "the State Commission") in FA No. 922 of 2009 which was also filed by the present petitioner. The appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.05.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, "the District Forum") passed in the execution proceedings before the District Forum under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") for enforcement of the District Forum"s order dated 27.04.2007. By the aforesaid order dated 27.04.2007, the District Forum had directed the petitioner to transfer the disputed site in question to the complainant on payment of non-construction fees in accordance with the decisions in the cases of "Sant Kaur vs State" and "Tehal Singh v State" and "Sant Kaur v State". The dispute essentially pertained to the amount of non-construction charges, which was Rs.10,24,346/- according to the calculation of the petitioner and Rs.45,070/- according to the respondent/complainant, for the period 1996-2007. The District Forum held that the charges to be paid by the respondent/complainant had be in accordance with the law laid down in the case "Tehal Singh v State (Civil Writ Petition No. 13648 of 1998) and on the basis of the judgment in case of "Sant kaur vs State".

(2.) IN the impugned order, the State Commission observed that the District Forum had decided the complaint of the respondent/ complainant on 27.04.2007 but the petitioner/appellant/opposite Party " OP did not file any appeal to the State Commission against the said order and thus that order of the District Forum had attained finality. The respondent/complainant later filed an application for execution of the aforesaid order of the District Forum on 18.03.2008 and the impugned order of the District Forum came to be passed. The State Commission rightly held that the Executing Forum/District Forum could not go behind the original order of the District Forum which had attained finality. The State Commission further observed that the Department instructions sought to be relied upon by the petitioner/appellant could not be taken into account because these were not placed before the District Forum nor were there any pleas in this regard in the written statement filed by the petitioner/appellant/OP before the District Forum during adjudication of the main complaint. Thus the main order in the complaint case could not be reopened at the stage of execution of the said order. For these reasons, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.