Case: KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD Vs. K.A. NAGAMANI

2. The factual matrix in which the present jurisdictional issue has been raised, is as follows:2.1. The Respondent – Complainant applied for allotment of a HIG¬B Flat under the Self-Financing Housing Scheme at Kengeri, Bangalore. The Appellant – Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as) vide letter dated 25.03.1992 allotted Flat No. 116, Type B on the First Floor to the Respondent – Complainant. The Board issued a Provisional Allotment letter dated 23.04.1992 informing the Respondent – Complainant that the cost of the flat was Rs. 3,15,000 which was to be paid in the instalments as specified.It is an admitted position that the Respondent – Complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,67,750 in four instalments.2.2. The Board issued letter dated 24.06.1995 whereby the Respondent – Complainant was allotted another flat, in lieu of the earlier flat for which the provisional allotment had been made. The Respondent – Complainant was informed that the cost of the flat was Rs. 5,90,000. Since the Respondent – Complainant was not willing to pay the final cost demanded by the Board, she sought a refund of the amount deposited by her.2.3. The Board refunded the amount of Rs. 2,63,813 after deducting Rs. 3,937 deposited by the Respondent – Complainant.2.4. The Respondent – Complainant made a representation to the Board demanding refund of the amount deducted, and also Interest @ 27% p.a. on the entire amount deposited from the date of payment of each instalment, till the date of refund. The Board however refused to accept the demand of the Respondent – Complainant.2.5. The Respondent – Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency of service under Section 2(1) (c)(iii) of the 1986 Act before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, and prayed for compensation.The District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006 allowed the Complaint, and directed payment of Interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750 from the date of deposit of the respective instalments, till the date of realization. The Board was also directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,937 to the Respondent – Complainant. It was directed that the amounts be paid within 45 days from the date of the Order.2.6. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006, the Respondent – Complainant preferred Appeal No. 166 of 2007 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.The State Commission vide Order dated 06.02.2007 dismissed the Appeal of the Respondent – Complainant.2.7. The Respondent – Complainant filed Revision Petition No. 1839 of 2007 before the National Commission.The National Commission vide Order dated 04.08.2011 dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum.2.8. The Respondent – Complainant filed SLP (Civil) No. 35226 – 35227 of 2011 before this Court, which was allowed, and the Order passed by the National Commission was set aside. This Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012 directed the Appellant – Board to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750 from the date of deposit till the date of realization; refund the amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been deducted by the Board; pay Rs. 50,000 towards compensation for deficiency in service, and Rs. 20,000 towards Costs of litigation to the Respondent – Complainant. The operative part of the Order is set¬out herein below for ready referencethe reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeals and pass the following order:¬(i) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant¬ complainant interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.2,67,750/¬ from date of its respective deposit till the date of realization with further direction to refund the amount of Rs. 3,937/¬ to her, as directed by the Consumer Forum.(ii) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant¬ complainant further sum of Rs.50,000/¬ as compensation for deficiency in service on their part.(iii) The respondent is also directed to pay the appellant¬complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/¬ towards cost of the litigation incurred bystood finally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012 which conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the parties.2.9. The Respondent – Complainant filed Execution Application No. 2 of 2014 before the District Forum. The Respondent – Complainant claimed payment of an amount of Rs. 3,58,749 towards execution of the Order dated 19.09.2012 passed by this Court. Both parties submitted their Memo of calculation before the District Forum. The District Forum vide Order dated 16.08.2014 held that the Memo of calculation filed by the Respondent – Complainant was partly correct, and directed the Appellant – Board to make an additional payment of Rs. 1,07,057.The Board satisfied the Decree by payment of the sum of Rs. 1,07,057 vide Demand Draft dated 09.09.2014.2.10. On 22.09.2014, the Respondent – Complainant filed Execution Appeal No. 1238 of 2014 under Section 15 of the 1986 Act, challenging the Order dated 16.08.2014 before the State Commission.The State Commission vide Order dated 01.03.2016 allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent – Complainant, and set aside the Order dated 16.08.2014 passed by the District Forum in E.P. No. 2 of 2014. It was directed that the amount of Rs. 2,67,750 already paid by the Board, would be appropriated first towards the Interest component and then towards the principal amount. The State Commission remitted the matter to the District Forum for fresh computation in compliance with the Order.2.11. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Appellant – Board preferred a Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act before the National Commission being R.P. No. 1362 of 2016.The Respondent – Complainant filed I.A. No. 299 of 2017 to challenge the maintainability of the Revision Petition filed by the Appellant – Board.The Revision Petition filed by the Board was allowed vide Order dated 10.02.2017. The stand taken by the Respondent – Complainant was rejected as being devoid of merit.2.12. The Respondent – Complainant thereafter preferred M.A. No. 281 of 2017 for referring I.A. No. 299 of 2017 to a larger bench; and filed M.A. No. 282 of 2017 for declaring the Order dated 10.02.2017 to be a nullity.The National Commission vide Order dated 02.02.2018 rejected the applications filed by the Respondent – Complainant.2.13. Being aggrieved by the Orders dated 10.02.2017 and 02.02.2018 passed by the National Commission, the Respondent – Complainant filed W.P. (Civil) No. 1746 of 2018 before the Delhi High Court.The Delhi High Court vide the Impugned Judgment dated 13.11.2018, set aside the Orders passed by the National Commission, and held that the National Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain a Revision Petition against the Order passed in Execution Proceedings by the State Commission. It was held that the nature of enforcement proceedings is materially different from the proceedings for adjudication of the consumer dispute. The Order passed in an Execution Petition was not amenable to a challenge before the National Commission in exercise of its Revisional Jurisdiction.2.14. Aggrieved by the Order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the Delhi High Court, the Appellant filed the present Appeal.

Reasoning: 6.5. Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised only when illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the decision making process of the fora below.7. The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission u/S. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed of ‘consumerbefore the State Commission. 7.1. The consumer dispute, in the present case, had already been finally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012. The second round of litigation emanated from the execution of the final order passed by thisOrder passed for enforcement, would not be an order in the ‘consumerWe affirm the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Patna High Court. Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit. Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merits of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings. They are independent proceedings initiated by the decree holder to enforce the decree passed in the substantive dispute.7.8. There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings.7.9. In the present case, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petitionu/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant – Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings.8. The National Commission erroneously allowed the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Furthermore, the National Commission modified the decree passed by this Court vide Order dated 19.11.2012 wherein this Court had directed the Board to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/¬ (which included an amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been initially deducted by the Board). The National Commission has awarded Interest on the amount of Rs. 3,937/- twice, by first including it in the principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/¬; and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on the same amount of Rs. 3,937/¬, which would amount to a double payment.