Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3367

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, CJ, DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
KISHORE BHARDWAJ – Appellant
Versus
M/S ROYALE EMPIRE & ORS. – Respondent
APPEAL EXECUTION NO. NC/AE/74/2024 | EA No. 58 of 2020 in CC No. 394 of 2016 | EA No. 81 of 2020 in CC No. 394 of 2016 | EA No. 147 of 2020 in CC No. 629 of 2016 | EA No. 148 of 2020 in CC No. 629 of 2016

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. RAJAT SANGWA, MR. SUMIT KUMAR SHARMA, ADV MR. KISHORE BHARDWAJ, IN PERSON, MR. RAVINDER KUMAR-IN PERSON
For the Respondents: MR. UDIT MENDIRATTA, ADV

The executing court must uphold the decree terms without reassessing its legality unless the decree is a nullity; prior compliance by debtors negates the complainant's refund claim.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 25 and 27 - Execution of decree - Appellant's execution applications dismissed as State Commission found complainant had already received possession of flat and the sale deed was executed, hence no refund could be processed - Commission noted that cause of action for refund ceased upon receipt of possession - Failure by judgment debtors to obtain requisite occupancy/completion certificates indicated non-compliance with statutory obligations - Court observed that executing courts cannot go behind the decree but must uphold its terms unless nullity is established - In this case, prior compliance by judgment debtors negated the complainant’s claim for further relief. (Paras 11, 12, 19-21)

Facts of the case:
Execution applications by complainant challenging dismissal by the State Commission, which held the complainant had received possession of the flat and had executed a sale deed, making the claim for refund not maintainable. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
State Commission's orders were flawed for not executing the decrees as stated, leading to remand for fresh disposal on merits. (Paras 18-20)

Issues: A) Whether the State Commission was justified in dismissing the execution applications based on the complainant’s previous receipt of possession; B) The role of the executing court in relation to the decree. (Paras 9, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that the executing court can only interpret the decree as it stands and cannot reassess the legality of the decree itself, thus upholding its binding nature unless it is invalid. (Paras 11, 12)

Result: Appeals granted in favor of the complainant for restoration of execution applications.

ORDER

AE No. 73 of 2024 and 74 of 2024

1. AE No. 73 of 2024 has been filed by the complainant / decree holder, Mr.Kishore Bhardwaj, challenging the common order dated 11.09.2024 of the State Commission in EA No. 58 of 2020 in CC No. 394 of 2016, which was filed under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Similarly, AE No. 74 of 2024 has been filed challenging the same common order dated 11.09.2024 in EA No. 81 of 2020 in CC No. 394 of 2016 which was filed under section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The said CC No. 394 of 2016 filed by the complainant / decree holder Kishore Bhardwaj was decided vide State Commission’s order dated 17.04.2018 in which following directions were issued :

(i) Ops will deliver the possession of flat No. 501 in Block F in Royale Apartments, Peermuchalla, Zirakpur to the complainant, complete in all respect including the completion/occupancy certificate from the Competent Authority within a period of 3 months from the date of order, subject to payment of the balance amount of Rs. 4 Lacs by the complainant, within a period of 2 months from the date of order. OPs will apprise the complainant with regard to the completion/occupancy certificate from the Competent Authority within 2 months and after receiving this information within a period of 1 month, the complainant will deposit the balance amount.

(ii) Ops will also pay interest on the deposited amount @ 8% p.a. from 6.9.2013 till the date of delivery of the possession. The amount to be paid by the complainant will be adjusted from the interest amount to be paid by the OPs to the complainant.

(iii) OPs will pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant;

(iv) To pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

(A) In the alternative in case the possession of the flat is not delivered within the stipulated period referred above, then OPs will pay the amount deposited by the complainant with OPs alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from various dates of deposit till payment.

(b) The complainant will also execute the cancellation of the sale deed executed by the OPs in favour of the complainant at the expense of the OPs.

(c) OPs will pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

(d) To pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation costs.

The above directions be complied by the OPs within a period of 3 months from the date of receiving of the copy of the order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act against the OPs.

2. As the JDs did not comply with the said decree dated 17.04.2018, the Decree Holder Kishore Bhardwaj filed two EAs viz EA No. 58 of 2020 under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and EA No. 81 of 2020 under section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . These 2 EAs alongwith MA No. 824 of 2024 in EA No. 58 of 2020 were disposed off through common order dated 11.09.2024 of the State Commission which is now impugned in the present 2 AEs.

3. As per impugned order dated 11.09.2024, MA No. 824 of 2024 filed by the Decree Holder in EA No. 58 of 2020 seeking recall of the order dated 30.05.2024 of the State Commission vide which MA No. 488 of 2024 in EA No. 58 of 2020 was disposed off and surities of Ms. Anju Singla and Nikita Garg were discharged, was dismissed. Vide same common order dated 11.09.2024, both the above stated EAs were disposed off without any further orders.

4. In EA No. 58 of 2020, the State Commission observed that orders passed in the complaint were primarily for the possession and in the alternative to refund the amount. However, the prayer for refund of the amount was not maintainable as cause of action ceased when he received the possession of the flat and sale deed was executed. The State Commission observed that since

Click Here to Read the rest of this document