ROSHAN LAL BALI Vs. HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by complainant-Mr. Roshan Lal Bali against the order dated 4th September, 1996 passed by learned District Forum, Faridabad in the execution application submitted by the complainant u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the complainant, the order dated 7th March, 1996 passed by the learned District Forum on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties has been virtually recalled and complainant has been directed to appear before Haryana Urban Development Authority-opposite party for the purpose of filing objections, etc.

(2.) After a perusal of the record we find that the complainant-petitioner had filed a complaint before District Forum, Faridabad complaining certain deficiencies in service on the part of HUDA regarding the non-supply of completion certificate. A sum of Rs.4,72,795.30 paise was also claimed by way of damages. After the reply was filed by HUDA, it transpired that the completion certificate had not been issued by HUDA because the complainant had not deposited Rs.94,943/- and if the same was deposited, the HUDA shall issue the completion certificate within 10 days of the date of payment. Thereupon the complainant agreed to abundance of his claim of Rs.4,72,795.30 paise and agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.94,943/as demanded by HUDA. On that basis the complaint was disposed of by the learned District Forum, by passing the following order : "this matter has been got settled before this Forum. A sum of Rs.94,943/- is stated to be outstanding against the complainant on account of two instalments which were not paid. Shri M. Kaushik, DDA of HUDA has made a statement that the Department would issue completion certificate within 10 days of the receipt of the above said amount. The complainant who is present before this Forum states in writing that the payment of the above said amount would be made by 15.4.1996. No more cause of action remains in this case and the complaint stands disposed of. " Thereafter the complainant deposited the sum of Rs.94,943/- on 15th April, 1996 as settled between the parties, but despite that the HUDA did not issue the necessary completion certificate for quite some time. Aggrieved against this, the complainant again approached the District Forum, Faridabad through an application u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act. On the receipt of the notice, HUDA filed their reply and again sought to contest the application on merits by alleging certain violations in construction of the building. Learned District Forum in order to settle the dispute amicably directed the complainant to appear before the Administrator, HUDA to remove the alleged violations within about six weeks and for that purpose adjourned the case to 27th October, 1996. Challenging this order in the present revision petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner has inter alia contended that once the matter had been settled by compromise and the complainant had agreed to deposit the amount demanded by HUDA, learned District Forum should have got its earlier order enforced instead of reopening the dispute. According to the learned Counsel, the impugned order amounted to recall of the earlier order and reopening the dispute which stood already settled.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the record, we find merit in the grievance of the complainant and are of the considered view that when the complainant had already performed his part of obligation enjoined upon him under the settlement, the other party HUDA is also duty bound to perform their duty. If somehow HUDA was aggrieved against the original order passed by the learned District Forum dated 7th March, 1996, they could have challenged the same by way of appeal or revision. But it appears that the order was passed by way of compromise to settle the pending dispute according to the terms offered by them i. e. HUDA shall issue the completion certificate within 10 days of the receipt of the payment of a sum of Rs.94,943 /-, which was outstanding against the complainant. This having been done, it was not open to HUDA to turn around and restart the controversy by pointing defects and deficiencies in the construction of the building. It has been settled by now by the Hon'ble National Commission, in the case of M/s. M. O. H. Kuthoos Maricar Ltd. V/s. K. Purushothaman (died) and Ors., 1995 2 CPJ 171, decided on 19th May, 1995, that once a dispute had been settled on the basis of compromise, the same should not be varied subsequently in execution proceedings. Consequently, we allow the revision petition, set aside the order dated 4th September, 1996 and direct HUDA to comply with the original order dated 7th March, 1996 passed by learned District Forum, Faridabad, positively within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and the compliance shall be reported to the learned District Forum immediately thereafter, failing which the respondent shall liable to be prosecuted u/sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act.