ORDER

This Appeal came to be instituted after a Revision Petition, that was filed by the Appellant against the same Impugned Order dated 05.10.2007, was dismissed by this Commission holding that a Revision would not be maintainable, and an Appeal would lie in terms of Section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Impugned order dated 05.10.2007.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised and the issue with regard to the maintainability as well, there are certain facts and decisions which need to be discussed before proceeding with the merits of the matter.

3. On merits there is a very short point involved as to whether the Appellant is liable to pay the balance amount as indicated in the Impugned Order being a calculation of Compound Interest or not.

4. Nonetheless for the time being putting aside the issue of merits the first issue with regard to the nature of the proceedings that can be maintained against such an order has to be discussed.

5. Chronologically, there a Complaint was lodged before the State Commission being Consumer Complaint No. 539 of 1993 praying for refund of the amount that was paid towards the booking of 4 commercial shops which the Complainant stated that he had booked for his grandchildren. The Complainant is alleged to have deposited installments but unfortunately he was unable to get possession of the original bookings and in that context the developer agreed to make available four shops in an alternative manner in a row.

6. There was an understanding that the shops will be handed over on or before 24.01.1997, but the dispute arose with regard to the area of the shops and the clarity of title of the same.

7. The offer which had been made by the Builder was therefore disputed and then the Complainant expressed that he would not like to pursue any litigation and hence refund be allowed. Consequently the State Commission vide Order dated 29.08.1997 allowed the Complaint together with 18% interest per annum

by way of compensation on the following terms:

“The next material question is as to the amount to which the complainant is entitled. Ordinarily the National Commission and various State Commissions have been granting besides refund of the actual amount paid interest @ 18% p.a. by way of compensation in such cases. We accordingly allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.5,65,640/- including the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- deposited vide cheque dated 10.01.1997 alongwith 18% interest from the date of various payments from time to time till date of refund alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs. This Order shall be complied with within four weeks of the receipt of a copy failing which it will be open to the complainant to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission u/s 27. Copy be furnished to both the parties.”

8. This Order came to be enforced by the Complainant through Execution Petition being Execution Application No. 307 of 1997. In the enforcement proceedings the Complainant moved an Application tendering a calculation which according to him was the correct calculation with regard to the payment of interest. This calculation was contested by the Appellant / Developer by filing an Application dated 09.12.2003, disputing the calculation as it was wrongly based on compound interest and giving the correct calculation at the rate of 18% per annum which was Simple Interest. A copy of this Application together with calculation of the Appellant is contained as Annexure P-5 and is on record. The same seems to have been also served on the other side and has been acknowledged by the State Commission in the Order dated 15.12.2003 which is extracted herein under:

“It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that he has filed calculations on 11.12.2003. However, the same are not on record. It is directed that Registry to have the same traced out and place the same on file. A copy of the same be given to the applicant by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the r