JARNAIL SINGH & ANR. S/O LATE SH. LABH SINGH, R/O H.NO. 2092, SECTOR 15 Vs. ADMINISTRATOR, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ANR. DELUX BUILDING, SECTOR 9, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide allotment letter dated 15.3.1990, the petitioners were allotted a plot of land by Chandigarh Administration, for a premium of Rs.17,10,000.00. The complainants / petitioners paid a sum of Rs.1,83,600.00 as interest, in addition to the principal amount of Rs.17,10,000.00. Alleging delay on the part of the respondent in providing amenities, they filed a consumer complaint in the year 2000, seeking compensation and re-fixation of the auction dates in accordance with the dates on which the amenities were provided to them. A compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 was granted to them and the respondent was also directed to treat the date of providing the last basic amenity as the date of the auction. The aforesaid order passed by the District Forum was maintained upto this Commission. Vide order dated 20.12.2002, the aforesaid order was declared to be satisfied on payment of Rs.2,15,013.00 to the complainants/petitioners. The aforesaid amount was received by the petitioners/complainants without any protest.

(2.) The petitioners/complainants filed another execution application being Execution Application No.46 of 2013, seeking execution of the order of the State Commission dated 18.3.2002, which this Commission had upheld. In the execution, they sought payment of Rs.28,77,425.00, along with compensation and litigation cost etc. The amount claimed by them as compensation alone was more than twice the amount paid by them for the plot. The second execution application however, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.12.2013, with liberty to the petitioners/complainants to resort to any other remedy available to them in law.

(3.) The petitioners/complainants filed a fresh consumer complaint, seeking payment of Rs.6,96,100.00 along with interest and compensation on the ground that the respondent had failed to comply with the order dated 18.3.2002 passed by the State Commission. It was also alleged in the complaint that since the last amenity was provided in the year 2002, the lease rent was payable from 2003 only but the complainants had been making payment of lease rent since 1991 and therefore, lease rent paid for the years 1991 to 2002 was liable to be refunded to them. In para 17 of the complaint, it was alleged that the cause of action accrued to the complainants from 18.3.2002 when the order was passed by the State Commission. It was further alleged that the cause of action again arose when the order of the State Commission was approved by this Commission on 23.8.2010 and it also arose when a copy of the order of the National Commission was supplied to the respondents.