IMPORTANT POINTS
1. EP Proceedings - The Execution Proceedings being separate proceedings and be filed under the Act which has been prevalent at the time of filing of the Execution Proceedings.
2. Non Compliance of Order - There was no specific direction in the said Order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 / 2020 for extension of compliance of any Order passed by any Court/Tribunal meaning thereby the Judgment Debtor cannot take the advantage of Order in relation to their obligation in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 15.01.2019.
3. Executing Court - The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the Parties.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Execution Applications have been filed by the Complainants / Decree Holders against Shree Vardhman Infrahome Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party / JD Developer).

2. The Complainants/Decree Holders, being Members of the Flora Welfare Association, filed Consumer Case No. 1893/2017 titled Flora Welfare Association Vs. Shree Vardhman Infrahome Pvt. Ltd. before this Commission. In view of the Settlement Agreement between the Parties, the Complaint was disposed off vide Order dated 15.01.2019 in following terms:

“The matter has been settled between the parties. The learned counsel for the complainant, on instructions from Mr. Sangeet Bali, President of the complainant association who is present in the Court, seeks disposal of the complaint in terms of the written settlement dated 15.01.2019 which is annexed to the application IA No.894 of 2019 filed today in the Court for recording the settlement. The complaint is accordingly disposed of in terms of the settlement dated 15.01.2019 which shall form part of this order. It is also made clear that in case the OP offers to pay the balance payable in kind, such as through additional parking, additional power back-up etc. as per clause 4 and para 2 of the settlement, which shall be for the discretion of the concerned allottees whether to accept such balance in kind such as additional parking, additional power back-up etc. or not. In the event they are not agreeable to accept the said balance in kind, the OP shall pay the balance to them by way of Demand Drafts/bank transfers etc. It has also been agreed between the parties and is ordered accordingly that the aforesaid settlement would not be treated as a binding precedent”

3. As the Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor failed to satisfy the Decree dated 15.01.2019, all the Members of the Complainant Association had filed individual Execution Application seeking enforcement of the Decree dated 15.01.2019 as well as penalties to be imposed upon Judgment Debtor, Shree Vardhman Infrahome Private Limited and its directors for noncompliance with the Decree dated 15.01.2019.

4. Since the facts and question of law involved in all these Execution Applications are similar, these Execution Applications are being disposed off by this common Order.

5. The Opposite Party/Judgment Debtor has contested the Execution Applications by filing Replies/Objections, in which it was stated that the Complaint was filed by the Flora Welfare Association and the Settlement Agreement dated 15.01.2019 was executed between the said Association and the Opposite Party, therefore, the individual Member cannot be said to be a Decree holder and is not entitled for seeking execution of the Decree.

6. It was further submitted that some of the Execution Applications have been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short the New Act) instead of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Old Act). As the Complaint was decided under the Old Act as such all the subsequent proceedings related to such consumer Complaint including Execution Applications are to be filed under the Old Act. It was also stated that no proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be initiated against the Opposite Party / JD Developer as the prayer which is necessarily required to be made for initiation of proceedings under Section 27 of the Act, has not been made in EA No. 99 and 100 of 2020. The Execution Application are not filed in accordance with mandatory provisions of law and as such same is liable to be dismissed.

7. It was further submitted that in the Settlement Agreement the principle understanding between the Parties was completion of project and delivery of possession of the respective flats. However, in certain contingencies the option of refund alongwith interest, was given to the Allottees merely to deter the Opposite Party / JD Developer against any willful default or negligence and to ensure t