Order

Item.No.57 S.K. JAIN VS SELENA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.

06.03.2024 Present: Mr. S.K. Jain (Mobile No. 8810532796), counsel for the DH EA-13/24 Execution application has been filed within two years of the order dated 10.11.2023.

1. The present petition has been filed by the Decree Holder in order to execute the judgment of this commission in case CC-221/2019 pronounced on 10.11.2023.

Vide the said judgment, this commission allowed the complaint of the Decree Holder and directed the Judgment Debtor to pay an amount of Rs.6,51,847/-

(approx.) along with interest within a period of two months. The relevant portion has been reproduced as under:

“27. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we hold that the Opposite Party is deficient in providing its services to the Complainant. Thus, we direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant i.e., Rs.5,51,847/- along with simple interest as per following arrangement:

A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date on which the each instalment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till

10.11.2023 (being the date of the present judgment);

B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Party pays the entire amount on or before 10.01.2024;

C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Party fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 10.01.2024, the entire amount is to be refunded along with an interest 9% p.a. calculated from the date on which the each instalment/payment was received by the Opposite Party till the actual realization of the amount.

28. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of:

A. Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the Complainants; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs.50,000/-.”

1. The counsel for the Decree Holder has argued that even after spending more than

05 years in litigating the present case, the Decree Holder is not able to enjoy the fruits despite the fact that this commission allowed the Judgment Debtor to make good for his wrongs. Counsel for the Decree Holder vehemently argued that attachment warrants may be issued against the Judgment Debtor.

2. We have enquired from the counsel for the Decree Holder, whether any notice of the appeal or any other proceedings pertaining to the case in hand has been received by the Complainant/Decree Holder, wherein the order of this commission might have been impugned, to which, it has been submitted that as of today, no notice of any such proceeding has been received.

3. In the given circumstances, there exists no bar in proceeding further with the execution proceedings in the present case.

4. Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for the procedure to enforce the orders passed by the Consumer Commissions, which reads as under:

25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.—

(1) Where an interim order made under this Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.

(2) No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for more than three months at the end of which, if the non-compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.

(3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the Sta