Only Procedural Aspects Or Clerical Mistakes Can Be Corrected After The Judgment Is Pronounced: National Consumer Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya (presiding member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), in a case against Jalandhar Improvement Trust, held that after a judgment is pronounced, the commission becomes functus officio (having performed the office), and it cannot be modified to award a higher penal interest and additional...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya (presiding member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), in a case against Jalandhar Improvement Trust, held that after a judgment is pronounced, the commission becomes functus officio (having performed the office), and it cannot be modified to award a higher penal interest and additional compensation.
Contentions of the Complainant
The complainant booked a plot with Jalandhar Improvement Trust, deposited the application money, and successfully secured the plot through a lottery draw conducted by the developer. Despite the expiry of the due date for possession as per the allotment, the developer neither executed the agreement for sale nor handed over possession of the allotted plot. Later, the complainant discovered that the landowners and others had filed a case before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, challenging the land's acquisition. The High Court directed all parties to maintain the status quo. Despite the court's interim order, the developers proceeded with their scheme, collecting money from the complainant and other allottees. The complainant alleges that the developer engaged in unfair trade practices and is seeking a refund of the money along with compensation. State Commission of Haryana consolidated the above complaint along with various other complaints for refund of money in respect of the same project, allowed the complaint, and directed the OPs to refund Rs.4261575 with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment and pay Rs.400000 as compensation and Rs.20000 as cost out of which, Rs.10000 was payable to the complainant and Rs.10000 had to be deposited Legal Aid Account. The complainant has filed this complaint challenging the order by the subsequent appeal in the National Commission.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The developers filed an appeal in this commission from the aforementioned judgment. The Commission partially modified the State Commission's order and directed the developers to refund the principal amount of Rs. 4,899,075 deposited by the complainant with interest from the respective date of deposit until the realization date. The interest rate was to be the rate of house building loan in the corresponding period of a scheduled nationalized bank (consider State Bank of India). If floating interest rates were specified during that period, the higher rate should be used for this calculation. The compensation of Rs. 400,000 and the cost of Rs. 20,000, as awarded by the State Commission, were upheld. The developers challenged the above order before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed.
Observations by the Commission
The commission observed that the complainant submitted this application seeking higher penal interest and additional compensation because the developers failed to pay the decreed amount within the specified four weeks, as directed by the commission's order. The commission referred to decisions in State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal and Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. Vs. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd., wherein the court emphasized that after the judgment is delivered, the court or quasi-judicial authority becomes functus officio(having performed the office). It means that only procedural aspects or clerical mistakes can be corrected after the judgment is pronounced. The commission further observed that it had already provided a reasoned judgment, and now, it cannot be modified to award higher penal interest and additional compensation. After pronouncing the judgment, the commission became functus officio and did not retain any further authority to modify the order repeatedly.
The commission ruled the miscellaneous application non-maintainable and rejected it on the aforementioned grounds.
Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. Varun Bedi
Counsel for the Opposite Party: Nemo
Case Title: Archit Gupta Vs. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr.
Case Number: M.A. No. 459/2022