ORDER

Dr. Inder Singh, Presiding Member—AE/260/2023 has been filed by the Judgment debtors- (i) M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ii) Mr. Tarninder Singh, Director (iii) Mr. Narinderbir Singh, Director against the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in EA/48/2023 in CC/926/2016. The brief facts of the case are given below.

2.1 A Consumer Complaint No. CC/926/2016 was filed by Respondent herein before the State Commission and was disposed of vide order dated 08.05.2017 of the State Commission with the following directions:—

“i) To refund the amount Rs.34,30,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

ii) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.25 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.44,000/- to the complainant.”

2.2 Aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2017, Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd. Respondent-1 herein and others filed FA/1800/2017 before this Commission. Vide order dated 20.03.2023, this Commission, while partly allowing the First Appeal No. 1800 of 2017, passed the following directions:

“1. Applicant is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.34,30,000/- to the respondent/complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment.

2. To pay litigation cost of Rs.44,000/- as awarded by the State Commission.

3. While disposing of the present Appeal, I also award a litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

4. The entire payment shall be made within four months from the date of this order failing which it will attract penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum.”

2.3 The Decree holder filed Execution Application No.48/2023 under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before the State Commission against the JDs/Respondents herein on the ground that the JDs partly complied the order dated 20.03.2023 and made the payment of Rs.28,41,288/- and as per the calculation sheet, annexed by the Decree Holder along with the Execution Application, an amount of Rs.6,78,852/- was payable by the JDs as on 24.07.2023. The State Commission passed the order dated 07.11.2023 vide which the State Commission gave the following directions:

“i. Pay balance payment of Rs.6,78,852.36/-to the Decree Holder, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

ii. Pay to the decree holder Rs.10,000/- towards cost of present execution application, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

2.4 Now the JDs/Appellants herein are before this Commission in Appeal Execution No. 260 of 2023, challenging the said order dated 07.11.2023 of the State Commission passed in EA/48/2023 on the following grounds:

(a) The State Commission erred in overlooking the fact that the Execution Application was barred by the provisions of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The State Commission erred in overlooking the settled law that the provisions of Order XXI of CPC are applicable in the cases of execution wherein Order XXI Rule 1 deals with the Modes of paying money under decree which states that if the amount is deposited in Court, or paid to the decree holder or person entitled to it, the person entitled to the amount cannot later seek interest on it.

(b) The State Commission overlooked the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 457 decided on 19.10.2006], wherein it was held that in cases of execution of money decrees or award decrees, or rather, decrees other than mortgage decrees, interest ceases to run on the amount deposited, to the extent of the deposit.

(c) The Allahabad High Court in Amtul Habib Vs. Mohammad Yusuf [(1918) ILR 40 AII 125] has held that where money was paid into court by the j