National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A fine of Rs 5 lakh have been imposed upon Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for allotment of same flat twice, for harassing the complainant for more than 18 years without any justification and for continuous filing of meritless petitions in different judicial Forums in order to cover up its own fault and negligence. The Court asked DDA to recover the damages from salaries of "delinquent officials" who had been pursuing the "meritless litigation" and also ordered that out of Rs 5 lakh, Rs 2.5 lakh would be given to the complainant and rest Rs 2.5 lakh would be deposited in the commission's Consumer Legal Aid account. While referring to various judgments of Supreme Court, NCDRC held strict stand towards frivolous and uncalled for litigations and said that if any litigant approaches the court of equity with unclean hands, suppress the material facts, make false averments in the petition and tries to mislead and hoodwink the judicial Forums then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold. The Court was hearing a revision petition filed by DDA challenging the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide which DDA was directed to return back all the amount of Rs.30,000/- received by it from the complainant and to provide the complainant another flat of the same description, on the same condition in the same locality or nearby. The DDA was further directed that in case no flat is available, DDA will pay, Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant because of sky rocketing prices, since the flat was booked for Rs.5,03,348/- in the year 1996-1997. Earlier the complainant who was allotted a flat in Narela under DDA's expandable housing scheme in 1997 had filed a complaint before District Forum for possession of the said house. The complainant had alleged that DDA was guilty of double allotment as the flat allotted to the complainant was also allotted to some other person. The said complaint was dismissed by the Forum but in appeal State Commission ordered in complainant’s favor. Rendering relief to Complainant, NCDRC also held, "We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in the impugned order passed by it." (Delhi Development Authority v. D.C. Sharma, Revision Petition No.895 of 2013, decided on February 18, 2014)NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
REVISION PETITION NO.895 OF 2013
with
I.A. No.1620 of 2013 (For Stay)
(Against the order dated 15.1.2013 Appeal No.705 of 2010 of the State Commission, Delhi)
Print Page
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO.895 OF 2013
with
I.A. No.1620 of 2013 (For Stay)
(Against the order dated 15.1.2013 Appeal No.705 of 2010 of the State Commission, Delhi)
Delhi Development Authority,
Versus
D.C. Sharma
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER
Pronounced on: 18th February, 2014
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Petitioner/Opposite Party has filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act) against impugned
order dated 15.1.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.705 of 2010.
2. Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant in response to an advertisement published by the Petitioner/Opposite Party under the name of “EXPANDABLE HOUSING SCHEME, 1996” applied for allotment of a flat, vide Application No.014269 dated 8.10.1996. As per terms and conditions of the scheme, respondent deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- as earnest money alongwith application. In the draw of lots held on 21.3.1997, respondent was allotted a flat bearing No.440, Type-A, Sector B-4, Pocket-6, Group-2,Narela, Delhi as communicated by the petitioner vide its letter dated 12.1.2000/20.1.2000. As per allotment letter, cost of the allotted flat was shown as Rs.5,16,300/- and respondent was called to deposit initial amount of Rs.37,946.09 by 18.7.2000. Respondent deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- as confirmation money with the petitioner, vide ChallanNo.088115 dated 10.2.2000.
Therefore, respondent vide letter dated 15.2.2001 communicated to the petitioner, that he has shifted from old residence to new address and requested that any official communication pertaining to the allotted flat be entertained at new residential address.
3. It is further stated that as respondent was/is a Government servant, he wanted to avail the loan facility from his office for the purpose of securing necessary balance payment in respect of the above mentioned flat. In this connection, he made a written request dated 13.3.2000 to the petitioner for grant of necessary mortgage permission. However, no response was received from the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent had been visiting the concerned officials of the petitioner on public hearing days and repeating his request. On all these occasions, he was assured that the permission shall be granted in due course of time. Since, respondent could not get any response from the petitioner, vide application dated 16.11.2006 he sought information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) from the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent for the first time came to know from petitioner’s letter dated 13.12.2006 in response to his application under RTI Act, that the flat allotted to him on the basis of draw of lots held on 21.3.1997, had already been allotted in favourof Smt. Santosh Minhas through draw of lots held on 28.3.1995 vide allotment file No. 505(740)/95/EHS/NA. Thereafter, respondent served a legal notice upon the petitioner. However, petitioner instead of taking corrective measures in the case of “Double Allotment” tried to justify and cover up its deliberate and intentional mistake in reply dated 30.7.1997. Due to gross negligence, ineptitude and inefficiency on the part of petitioner, respondent has suffered loss and expenditure.
4. Accordingly, respondent made following prayers in his complaint;
“Respondent/DDA be directed to give allotment of an alternative flat to the complainant at the premium/price prevalent in the year 1997-98, as indicated in the allotment letter dated 12/1/2000-20/1/2000 and an interest @ 18% per annum be awarded in favour of the complainant on the amount of Rs.30,000/- lying deposited with the respondent/DDA, since 1996 & onward.
It is further prayed that the respondent/DDA be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation for causing unnecessary physical and mental hardships and agony to the complainant and another sum of Rs.10,000/- be also awarded to the complainant on account of expenses incurred in course of travelling to the office of the respondent/DDA on various occasions from his residence as well as from his office, for making personal request to the concerned officers/staffs of the respondent/DDA for getting needful done.
Any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deem just and proper including cost of the present proceedings be also awarded in favour of the complainant, in facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
5. In its written statement petitioner has taken certain preliminary objections stating that the complaint is false and frivolous and therefore liable for outright rejection with cost in terms of Section 26 of the Act. It is further stated that the respondent has neither proved any deficiency in service nor proved any negligence on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the complaint is barred under Section 24 of the Act.(Emphasis supplied)
6. On merits, it has been admitted by the petitioner that respondent was declared successful for the allotment of the flat in question through the computerized draw held on 21.3.1997 for which he had already deposited Rs.15,000/- towards registration money. Demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the respondent on 12.1.2000/20.1.2000 to deposit the cost of the flat as per schedule and last date of making payment (with interest) was 18.6.2000.
7. It is further stated that as per record, it was found that flat No.440, Sector-B-4, Pocket-6, Type-A, GR-2, Narela was allotted to Smt. Santosh Minhas through the computerized draw held on 28.3.1995 and the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued vide allotment file No. F.505(740)/95/EHS/NA and after issuance of the demand-cum-allotment letter, she made the total required payment against the flat No.440.
8. The case was therefore, examined for the allotment of another flat to the respondent but he was not found entitled for allotment of flat as he had deposited only the confirmation amount of Rs.15,000/- and failed to deposit the cost of flat. Thus, the allotment stood cancelled automatically on account of non-payment of the demanded amount. Intimation in this regard was sent vide letter dated 12.12.06.
9. Petitioner has admitted that application for change of address was received in its office from the respondent only on 15.2.2004. Further, letter dated 13.3.2000 was received in Public Hearing but thereafter no further correspondence was made by the respondent till 16.11.06. Under these circumstances, complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
10. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Delhi (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 7.8.2010, dismissed the consumer complaint.
11. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same and passed the following order;
“Appeal is therefore allowed. Respondent will return back all the amount of Rs.30,000/- hitherto received by it, and will provide the complainant another flat of the same description, on the same condition in the same locality or nearby. In case no flat is available, the respondent DDA will pay, the appellant Rs.30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lac) because of sky rocketing prices, and since the flat was booked for Rs.5,03,348/- in the year 1996-1997, Rs.24,96,652/-(Rs. Twenty Four Lac Ninety Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty Two only) as the escalated amount will be payable. Flat is to be allotted within 30 days, and if no flat is available, payment is also to be made within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.”
12. Hence, the present revision.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
14. It has been argued by learned counsel that respondent deposited only Rs.30,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.5,03,348/-. Since, respondent failed to make the payment of instalments as per the allotment-cum-demand letter, it resulted in the cancellation of allotment and respondent is not entitled to any relief. Further, intimation in this regard was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.12.2006. Under these circumstances, impugned order passed by the State Commission is liable to be set aside.
15. Petitioner in its written statement admits that;
“DDA had floated a scheme called Expendable Housing Scheme, 1996 where applications were invited for allotment of about 3500 Expendable Houses. In this scheme the complainant/Shri Dinesh Chander Sharma vide application No.014269 dated 5.10.96 applied for allotment of flat by depositing Rs.15,000/- towards registration money. The complainant was declared successful for the allotment of flat No.440, Sector-B-4, Pocket-6, Type-A, GR-2, Narela through the computerized draw held on 21.3.1997. The demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 12.1.2000-20.1.2000 with request to deposit the cost of flat as per schedule mentioned therein and the last date of making the payment (with interest) was 18.6.2000.”
16. However, in the same breath in the very next para of its written statement, petitioner take a somersault and states;
“As per record it was found that the flat No.440 Sector-B-4, Pocket-6, Type-A, GR-2, Narela was allotted to Smt. Santosh Minhas through the computerized draw held on 28.3.95 and the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued vide allotment file No. F.505(740)/95/EHS/NA and after issuance of the demand-cum-allotment letter, she made the total required payment against the flat No.440.”
17. Then in the next para of its written statement, petitioner’s defence is;
“The case was therefore examined for the allotment of another flat to the complainant but he was not found entitled for allotment of flat as he had deposited only the confirmation amount of Rs.15,000/- and failed to deposit the cost of flat. Thus the allotment stood cancelled automatically on account of non-payment of the demanded amount. Intimation in this regard was sent vide letter dated 12.12.2006.”
18. The above defence taken by the petitioner is an apt example of famous Hindi saying “Ulta Chor Kotwal Ko Dhante”. Admittedly, respondent was declared successful for allotment of the flat in the draw held on 21.3.1997. On the other hand, it is petitioner’s own case that the same very flat already stood allotted to one Smt. Santosh Minhas in the draw held on 28.3.1995. No explanation about this goof up has been furnished by the petitioner nor it has stated as to what action petitioner took against the delinquent officials who were involved in this mischief which led to the allotment of a flat in 1997, which already stood allotted in 1995 as also fully paid for by Smt. Santosh Minhas. Be that as it may, there is nothing on record to show that when such glaring mistake came to its knowledge, petitioner ever took any step to apprise the respondent about such mistake, who was the affected person.(Emphasis supplied)
19. On the other hand, defence of the petitioner is that as the respondent had not deposited the balance amount, the allotment made in his favour stood cancelled automatically.
20. We fail to understand the logic of the above defence taken by the petitioner, when as per petitioner’s own case, the flat in question stood allotted to one Smt. Santosh Minhasin 1995, then how the respondent could be expected to deposit the cost for a non-existent flat as per schedule, by the last date on 18.6.2000. Further, instead of owning up to their mistake the petitioner even today brazenly take the plea that as the respondent had not deposited the balance amount, they cancelled the allotment for a flat which the petitioner could not have or rather should not have allotted in the first place.
21. From the above contents of the written statement, it is manifestly clear that petitioner had filed its written statement before the District Forum in a mechanical manner and without going through its contents properly, otherwise it would not have taken this plea that the complaint filed by the respondent is false and frivolous. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the complaint filed by the respondent is false and frivolous. In fact it is the defence that is false and careless. The defence of petitioner is based on falsehood and the same has been taken just to save and protect its delinquent officials, who in order to cover up their own negligence and deliberate act shifted the entire blame on the respondent. It is inconceivable that for even ten years the petitioner failed to realize its own mistake and take necessary corrective action.
22. In this context it would be fruitful to quote the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P (2010) 2 SCC 114, where it held;
“1. For many centuries Indian Society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahinsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vague in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”
23. Now, coming to the impugned order of the State Commission, where it observed;
“7. The Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant on the ground that since he did not deposit the residual consideration amount of Rs.5,03,348/- he violated the contract, and he is not entitled, to any relief. We do not know how and why the District Forum failed to realize, that the flat for which demand, for confirmation amount had been made, was already sold out to another person by the OP/DDA, which fact is not disputed, by the DDA, and which is in the form of reply to RTI application by the respondent/DDA which is available on record.
8. The demand by the DDA for confirmation amount was therefore false and fictitious, because the demand related to a flat which was non-existent, then the question of appellant/complainant not complying with the demand does not therefore arise! There as such has been default in the performance of the contract by the respondent/DDA and they are therefore liable to pay all the amount received from the appellant/complainant, and to provide another flat to him, or to pay him compensation.”
24. We are in full agreement with the above reasoning given by the State Commission. Further, we must express our deep anguish over the manner in which petitioner being the biggest land owning agency of the capital city of this country, is bent upon depriving the respondent who was a successful allottee of the flat. Moreover, for the last about 18 years, the petitioner has made the respondent run from pillar to post, whose only fault is that he had been fighting for his legal and rightful claim.
25. It is well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under Section 21 of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
26. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed;
“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”
27. Thus, findings recorded by the State Commission that petitioner was deficient in rendering service is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of therevisional jurisdiction.
28. Hence, we find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in the impugned order passed by it.
29. It is well settled that every litigation has to come to an end ultimately. It is not that every order passed by the judicial foras are to be challenged even if the same are based on the sound reasonings.
30. It is a well-known fact that Judicial Forums across the country are saddled with large number of cases. Public/Statutory Bodies indulgences further burden them. Time and again, Courts have been expressing their displeasure at the Government/Public Bodies compulsive litigation habit but a solution to this alarming trend is a distant dream. The judiciary is now imposing costs upon Government/Public Bodies not only when it pursue cases which can be avoided but also when it forces the public to do so.
31. Public/Statutory Bodies spent more money on contesting cases than the amount they might have to pay to the claimant. In addition thereto, precious time, effort and other resources go down the drain in vain. Public Bodies are possibly an apt example of being penny wise pound-foolish. Rise in frivolous litigation is also due to the fact that these Government Bodies though having large number of legal personnel under their employment, do not examine the cases properly and force poor litigants to approach the Court.(Emphasis supplied)
32. Apex Court in Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust Vs. Mohal Lal 2010 CTJ 121 (Supreme Court) (CP) has made significant observations which have material bearing, namely,
4. “It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigation by Governments and statutory authorities are on the increase. Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and highhanded manner. They cannot behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers is brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to the corrected.
5. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf.
5.1 In Dilbagh Rai Jarry V. Union of India, 1973 (3) SCC 554, where this Court extracted with approval, the following statement (from an earlier decision of the Kerala High Court.):
“The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State’s interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak. Government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations, which move private parties to fight in Court. The lay-out on litigation costs and execution time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic showdowns where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of Government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957.”
5.2 In Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V. Venkatadri (Dead) by L.R.s (1979) 4 SCC, 176, held:
“2. It is high time that Governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a Government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the Court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable.”
5.3 In a three-Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh through LAC, Chandigarh, (1985) 3 SCC 737.
“3. The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen.”
6. Unwarranted litigation by Governments and statutory authorities basically stem from the two general baseless assumptions by their officers. They are:
(i) All claims against the Government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest Court of the land.
(ii) If taking a decision on an issued could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach the Court andsecure a decision.
The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of the Governments or statutory authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers-in-charge of litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision-making. Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision making to Courts and Tribunals. The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the Government and for filing appeals and revisions against adverse decisions, thereby, eliminating unnecessary litigation. But, it is not sufficient if the Central Government alone undertakes such an exercise. The State Governments and the statutory authorities, who have more litigations than the Central Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigation. Vexatious and unnecessary litigation have been clogging the wheels of justice, for too long making it difficult for courts and Tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bonafide and needy litigants.
7. In this case, what is granted by the State Commission is the minimum relief in the facts and circumstances, that is to direct allotment of an alternative plot with a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000/- . But instead of remedying the wrong, by complying with the decision of the Consumer Fora, the Improvement Trust is trying to brazen out its illegal act by contending that the allottee should have protested when it illegally laid the road in his plot. It has persisted with its unreasonable and unjust stand by indulging in unnecessary litigation by approaching the National Commission and then this Court. The Trust should sensitize its officers to serve the public rather than justify their dictatorial acts. It should avoid such an unnecessary litigation.”
33. In Ravinder Kaur Vs Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904, the Apex Court has made the following observations:
“Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law’s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.”
34. Further, Apex Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.4912-4913 of 2011 decided on July 4, 2011 has observed ;
“We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrong –doers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that court’s otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases.
It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668 this Court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our courts.
It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoers.
Learned Amicus articulated common man’s general impression about litigation in following words ;
“Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for him and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road.”
While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc.
The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years.
On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation.”
35. Recently, Supreme Court in an appeal filed by Chennai Port Trust against an order of the Madras High Court observed ;
“For decades, courts across the country witness appeals on frivolous grounds, resulting in wastage of public money and consuming valuable time of the Courts. This happens because officers involved in these frivolous appeals are not personally responsible and don’t pay from their pockets.
36. It is also well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, go on filing meritless petitions in different Fora. Time and again courts have held that if any litigant approaches the court of equity with unclean hands, suppress the material facts, make false averments in the petition and tries to mislead and hoodwink the judicial Forums, then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold. Equity demand that such unscrupulous litigant whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with heavy hands.
37. Now, the question for consideration is as to what should be the quantum of punitive damages to be imposed upon the petitioner, for harassing the respondent for last more than 18 years without any justification.
38. Keeping in view the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust (Supra) and in Ramrameshwari Devi (Supra), we hereby impose punitive damages amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac only) upon the petitioner for indulging in unfair trade practice and for causing undue harassment to the respondent. Out of the above amount, Rs.2.5 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) be paid to the Respondent/complainant by way of demand draft in his name. Balance amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of “Consumer Legal Aid Account” of this Commission, within eight weeks. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid damages within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
39. Further, petitioner should recover the damages amount from the salaries of the delinquent officials who had been pursuing this meritless litigation with the sole aim of wasting the public ex-chequer. An affidavit, duly sworn by the Vice-Chairman of Petitioner-Authority giving details of the officials from whose salaries the damages have been recovered, be also filed within eight weeks. However, the damages awarded in favour of the respondent shall be paid to him, only after expiry of period of appeal/revision preferred, if any.
40. List for compliance on 25.4.2014.
…………………………………….J
(V.B. GUPTA)
PRESIDING MEMBER
…………………………………………
(REKHA GUPTA)
Sg. MEMBER
No comments:
Post a Comment