KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD  Vs K.A. NAGAMANI

BENCH-

JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The case is a result of execution proceedings initiated by the Respondent for an Order relating to consumer dispute passed by the State Commission. The Respondent- Complainant was allowed a HIG-B Flat under the Self- financing Housing Scheme at Kengeri, Bangalore costing Rs. 3,15,000 which was to be paid in installments. The Respondent deposited the amount of Rs. 2,67, 750 in four installments after which a letter dated 24.06.1995 by the Board informed about the change in the allotted flat which now costs Rs. 5,90,000. The Respondent being unwilling to pay the present amount, sought a refund from the board. The board paid her Rs. 2,63,813 after deducting the amount of Rs. 3937. The respondent made a representation to the board asking for a refund of the entire amount deducted along with an interest of27% but the board refused to accept the demand.  The Respondent then filed a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(c)(iii) of the 1986 Act before the District Consumer Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the board to pay 12% p.a. interest on the amount deposited and also refund the deducted amount within 45 days. The respondent is dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum again filed an appeal before Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore which was dismissed by the commission. The Respondent again filed a revision petition before the National Commission who dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the District Forum’s order. The Respondent then filed an SLP(civil) appeal before the court which allowed the appeal and ordered to set aside the judgment of National Commission and directed to pay an interest of 18% p.a on the amount deposited along with the refund of the deducted amount and further compensation of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 20,000. The Respondent filed an execution application before the District Court where the calculation submitted by the Respondent was considered to be partly correct. On 22.09.2014 the Respondent again filed an execution appeal challenging the previous executive order, before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the order and further directed the district forum for fresh computation.

The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission appealed for a Revision Petition before the National Commission and it was allowed. The respondent being aggrieved by the order of the National Commission now filed an appeal at the Delhi High Court who held that the National Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain a Revision Petition against an order of State Commission. The appellant filed the present case being aggrieved by the order passed by the  Delhi High Court.

APPELLANT’s Side-

The Revision Petition is maintainable before the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the 1986 Act. The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is wide thus it intended to encompass all proceedings before State Commissions.

RESPONDENT’S Side-

The Revision Petition is out of the jurisdiction of the National Commission thus the Revision order passed by the Commission is null and void.

ISSUE-

Whether a Revision Petition is maintainable before the National Commission u/s, 21(b) of the 1986 Act against an order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings?

JUDGMENT-

The Apex Court affirm the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court and Patna High Court in the case of Guntupalli Rama Subbayyav. Guntupalli Rajamma and Masomat Narmada Devi & Anr. V. Nandan Singh & Ors respectively. The Court said that execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree thus National commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition U/S 21 (b) filed by the Appellant. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Delhi High Court and set aside the order passed by the National Commission.

Read Judgment:

[embeddoc url=”https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/6343/6343_2019_Judgement_06-May-2019.pdf” download=”all”]