Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President—This Commission in its order dated 18.11.96 passed the following orders:

"Accordingly, in the light of what is discussed above, we allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 30,000/- in lump sum as compensation to the complainant for the loss of business as a medical practitioner and mental torture and agony he had to undergo for non delivery of the car with effect from 2.7.88 to 7.5.92 with 18% interest per annum. The opposite party is also directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the price of the car i.e. Rs. 82,000/- for non delivery of the car for aforementioned period. The above amount as directed to be paid shall be payable within one month of the date of this order. In case of default of payment within the stipulated period, the complainant shall further be entitled to interest @ 18% per annum of the amount so directed to be paid in terms of this order with effect from 18.11.96 till actual payment. The cost of Rs. 1,000/- is also awarded."

2. In the complaint, the complainant has prayed that the respondent, namely; M/ s. Wheels World would be directed to replace the Montana Car with a new one or to refund the amount which he had invested for the purchase of this Car with interest thereon.

3. In spite of the order dated 18.11.96 in Complaint No. 15 of 1991, the order was not complied with by the opposite party-M/s. Wheels World although it was stipulated in the order itself that the amount as awarded by this Commission shall be paid within one month from the date of the order i.e., by 18.12.96. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed execution petition for non compliance of the orders under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act) and prayed that the property of the opposite party should be attached and sold in order to satisfy the decretal amount awarded by the Commission and on 26.3.97 we ordered that the property of the respondents mentioned in para 4 of the application shall be attached till further orders.

4. It may be noticed that on the last date of hearing we asked the learned Counsel for the opposite party to implement the order and the learned Counsel presumably under the instructions of his client submitted that the Commission could not pass such orders as the State Commission had no territorial jurisdiction although it was not open to him to raise such objection as the order had become final. Instead of compliance with the orders of this Commission, the attitude of the Counsel was of defiance and contemptuous. On 26.3.97 a notice under Section 27 of the Act, was issued to the Proprietor Mr. Rajesh Dewan of the respondents to implement the order within 15 days positively and in case of failure to do so, action under Section 27 of the Act would necessarily follow.

5. No affidavit has been filed by the opposite party to show cause against the notice. It has also not been shown as to why the orders have not been complied with and implemented within 15 days from the date of the order of this Commission.

6. Mr. Bansal, learned Counsel appearing for the owner of M/s. Wheels World, Mr. Rajesh Dewan submits that in pursuance of the orders of this Commission dated 26.3.97, one new Car has been attached and put to auction. However, no affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Dewan, the owner of the opposite party has been filed. Mere statement of the Counsel in this behalf, therefore, cannot be accepted. This statement on the face of it appears to be incorrect, as we have only ordered for attachment and not for auction and sale.

7. Mr. Bansal, learned Counsel for the contemner has however apart from reiterating his earlier stand that this Commission cannot pass any order as it had no territorial jurisdiction further submitted that no punishment can be awarded under Section 27 of the Act by the Commission as in the first instance the order of the Commission has to be executed in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made in suit un