IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 8034 OF 2026 (GM-CON)

BETWEEN:

DR. S. SHOBHA, W/O LATE S. JANARDHANA MURTHY, RESIDING AT NO.5, 17^TH MAIN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 026.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.S. SUHAS., ADVOCATE)

Digitally AND:

signed by REKHA R Location: 1. THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, High Court N.R. SQUARE, of Karnataka J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002.

REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD I.A.S

2. THE BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION, SRINAGAR WARD, BENGALURU - 560 073.

REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 09.07.2025 IN APPEAL EXECUTION No.2/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED:14.08.2025 IN R. A. No. 136/2025 (FOR REVIEW) VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE HON'BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

This writ petition has been filed impugning the Order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('NCDRC' for short) in Appeal Execution No.2/2025.

2. The petitioner has approached the NCDRC in appeal against the order dated 07.07.2023 of the State Commission passed in Execution Petition No.91/2017, whereby considering the order passed by the NCDRC on 21.03.2006 in First Appeal No.101/1099, the petitioner who was the complainant before the State Commission was granted compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), towards harassment and mental agony for nearly 10 years.

3. The petitioner had also filed the Cross Objections in the First Appeal No.101/1999 before the NCDRC. Though, the order dated 21.03.2006 was unambiguous, so far as the compensation for harassment and mental agony for a period of nearly 10 years was concerned, now, the petitioner in execution proceedings, sought to contend that the compensation granted should be for one year, and therefore, for 10 years he should be given Rs.1 Crore compensation.

4. As this was not the extent of the order dated

21.03.2006 passed by the NCDRC in First Appeal No.101/1999, the State Commission in Execution No.91/2017 opined as under:

"6. This Commission has directed to the Decree Holder to provide any clarification from the Hon'ble National Commission with respect to the payment of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards the loss of practice every year. In spite of direction to be given, the Decree Holder has not provided any clarification. The order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission is very clear that, the award was enhanced to Rs.10.00 lakhs and directed to judgment Debtor to pay the above said amount with interest. Accordingly the Judgment Debtor had paid the amount and there is no dispute with respect to the payment of the said amount. We are of the opinion that, when there is no any further clarification with respect to the payment of Rs.10.00 lakhs with interest every year for loss of practice. This Commission will not consider the amount claimed by the Decree Holder are payable by the Judgment Debtor. The Judgment Debtor has complied the entire order as per the Hon'ble National Commission even as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, we do not find any valid grounds for recovery of the further amount claimed by the Decree Holder as per the memo of calculation. In view of that, we consider the Judgment Debtor has complied the entire order, as such the execution petition is closed as fully satisfied."

5. Aggrieved by