ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37 A,CHANDIGARH Appeal Execution Application No.04 of 2025 Date of institution : 24.10.2025 Date of reserve : 20.03.2026 Date of Decision : 01.04.2026 Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Head Office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through, Sh. Dhanwant Singh Sidhu, Director, authorized vide Authority letter dated

20.08.2024.

….Appellant/Judgment Debtor Versus Suman Wadhwa, D/o Late Sh. O.P. Wadhwa, R/o PT62/2, First Floor, Kalka Ji, New Delhi-19 ….Respondent/Decree Holder Appeal Execution Application under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali), in EA/283/2024 Quorum:-

Mrs. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the appellant/JD : Ms. Sukriti Kaur, Advocate For the respondent/DH : Ms. Alka Sharma, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER This appeal execution application has been filed by the appellant/JD under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the District Commission in Execution Application filed by the respondent/DH bearing EA/283/2024 (arise out of final order dated 10.04.2024 passed in CC/291/2021) vide which the District Commission has issued fresh bailable warrants against the directors of appellant/JD along with passing observations on non compliance on the part of police authorities and rejected the appellant request for keeping the warrants in abeyance.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has never refused to comply with the final order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the District Commission in CC/291/2021 as out of two option given in the order, the handing over possession of a plot to the respondent/DH was subject to balance payment and also as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. However, no letter of allotment and Buyers Agreement were issued due to default of the respondent on account of non-availability of funds with her. The learned counsel has further submitted that a total of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid by the respondent/DH against the total sale consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-, so in order to comply with the compliable part of the order i.e. to refund the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest etc, the appellant during the course of the execution proceedings has already offered refund of Rs.17,89,871/- (including interest), which the respondent/DH has refused to accept. As such, no non-compliance can be attributed on the part of the appellant/JD. Further submitted that reply/objections to the execution application have been filed before the District Commission, which are still to be adjudicated. As the respondent/DH through her counsel refused to accept the refundable amount, the Executing Court passed order dated 08.09.2025 for production of appellants/JDs and further vide impugned order dated 29.09.2025, erroneously ordered for the issuance of bailable warrants against Taraninder Singh Director of the appellant/JD company, without adjudicating on the objections/reply filed by the appellant/JDs. The learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2025.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/DH has argued that the present appeal execution application is not maintainable at this stage being premature and requested for dismissal of the same.

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. At the outset, it is pertinent to discuss here Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which reads as follow:-

Section 72: Penalty for Non-Compliance of Order.

72. (1) Whoever fails to comply with any order made by the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall be punishable with impris