IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.

AEA/07/2022 Court No. 1

1. Pankaj Kumar Gupta E1/17 DOS, ISRO Housing Colony, Vikramnagar, Ambli-Bopal Road, Ahmedabad-380058 …Appellant Vs

1. Kavisha Infracon

100, Shivranjani Society, Shivranjani Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 ...Respondent Ld. Advocate, Mr Meet Pansuriya, for the appellant.

Ld. Advocate, Mr. Nilay Dave, for the respondent.

Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President Smt. A. C. Raval, Member Mr. R. N. Mehta, Member Order by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President

1. Appellant has filed this appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 07.05.2022 passed by Ld. CDRC, Ahmedabad (city) in Execution Application No.24/2018

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Meet Pansuriya for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Nilay Dave for the Respondent. We have perused the record of the case and impugned order.

2.1. The appellant is original complainant and respondent is original opponent before the District Commission. Therefore, the party will be referred as per the original status.

2.2. This appeal is arising out of execution proceeding it requires to be expedite because this is a second inning of the litigation. Therefore, with the consent of the advocates of the parties this appeal is heard finally and disposed of at the stage.

3. Order under challenge: The learned District Commission has passed following order dated 07.05.2022 in Execution Application No.24/2018 which reads as under:

“The opponent is directed to comply the second relief i.e. alternative relief regarding the refund of the earnest money along with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. within the period of one month along with the costs of execution petition Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand and only)

On compliance of this order, the Execution Application NO.24 OF 2018 filed by the applicant shall stand disposed off as fully satisfied.”

4. Argument of the appellant: Learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that the learned District Commission has held in law by giving if finding that it is upto the judgment debtor how to comply with the award passed by the learned District Commission. That the learned District Commission has not appreciated the evidence on record and not interpreteted the judgment and order dated

12.01.2018 in Consumer Complaint No.191/2017.

4.1. It is further argued the Learned District Commission has recorded wrongly its finding that so far as the relief granted by District Forum is not mandatory for the opponent to execute the sale deed after taking the remaining amount of cost of flat in complies of relief No.1, as wording use in relief, the opponent can refuse to the execute sale deed, if complainant had not complied the terms and condition of the agreement to sale and in that situation the opponent can comply relief No.2. It is further argued that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that till today even after received 20% of consideration amount. The opponent has not educated the agreement to sale which was demanded by the appellant/original complainant for loan processing and further processing in the deal. That the Learned District Commission said a very long precedent to such transection were builder nigam none responsive to buyer and does not even respond to notice of cost and appears in the execution petition of ex-

parte order only after issuance of bailable warrant.

4.2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted written submission wherein it is contended that the execution court has flat to appreciate the latters dated 29.01.2018, 24.02.2018 and 01.03.2018 and E-Mail dated 23-03-2018. It is further order that the order passed by the District Commission is non-speaking order that the order passed is considering the irrelevant consideration, which the con