IMPORTANT POINT
Deduction of TDS from award amount is not wrong.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 28.09.2016, passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in execution application No. EA/99/2016, vide which, while dismissing the said application, it was held that the judgment debtors/respondents had paid the amount in question, as per the settlement, except the amount of tax deducted at source (TDS) and hence, they could not be punished by invoking the provisions of section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has also been stated in the impugned order that the appellant/applicant should approach this Commission to get clarification, as to whether the tax could be deducted at source on the amount to be paid under settlement or not.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant filed consumer complaint No. 42/2009 before the State Commission against the opposite parties/judgment debtors for deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice, as they failed to deliver possession of the residential plot allotted in his favour. The said complaint was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the State Commission. It was ordered that a refund of amount of Rs.37,95,000/- deposited by the complainant be made alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation, and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony etc. and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved against the said order, the respondent/OP challenged the same by way of the first appeal, FA No. 22/2011 before this Commission. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2015 in view of the settlement reached between the parties. An application giving the terms and conditions of the settlement, signed by both the parties, was filed before this Commission. As per the settlement, the total amount of refund including interest was calculated as Rs.66,87,688/-. The said amount was to be paid by the respondent/OP in eight EMIs of Rs.8,35,961/- each. The first instalment was to be paid on 10.01.2016. However, the complainant filed an execution application No. 99/2016 before the State Commission under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that the OPs failed to follow the terms and conditions of the compromise deed, as they deducted a sum of Rs.2,89,269/- as TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) out of the amount payable in view of the compromise deed. The complainant contended that since the OPs had failed to follow the terms and conditions of the settlement, they were bound to pay the refund amount alongwith interest @12% p.a., rather than 9% p.a. in terms of the order dated 09.12.2010 of the State Commission.

3. The respondent/OP, however, averred that the tax was deducted as per the statutory provisions and paid to the authority concerned. Moreover, in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the complainant was debarred from instituting any legal proceedings, civil or criminal, against the respondent/OP. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 28.09.2016, concluded that the judgment debtors/OP had paid the amount as per the settlement except the TDS and hence, they could not be punished by invoking the provisions of section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the State Commission stated that the complainant should approach this Commission to get clarification, as to whether tax could be deducted at source on the amount to be paid under settlement or not. Being aggrieved against the said order, the present execution appeal has been filed by the complainant.

4. During hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant/appellant stated that the judgment debtor/OP/respondent had violated the terms and conditions of the settlement and hence, they were liable to pay th