JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The main issue which falls for consideration is whether the Builder was supposed to install the Generator as well as the Transformer in the premises in dispute? This is now an admitted fact that the Generator has been installed. The petitioners pick up a conflict with the question that they were not required to install the Transformer. 2. It has been mentioned that B.S. Kumar and H.S. Veena, the complainants had filed a complaint before the District Forum. During the course of proceedings, the petitioners gave an undertaking the they would attend to the unattended works shown at Sl. Nos. (a) to (k) of the Memorandum of Undertaking. They further undertook to dispose of the said works, within two monthsof the order. Consequently, the complaint was disposed of on 12.01.2009 as per the abovesaid terms. 3. Thereafter, the Complainants/Decree Holders filed Execution Petition. It was stated that the work was not complete till 29.06.2009. On 29.09.2009, the petitioners took a stance that they had completed all the pending works and Generator is kept pending at the premises and they are pursuing the matter with BESCOM. The respondents/ complainants themselves objected that it should not be installed at a particular place earmarked by the petitioner for that purpose, whereas other Flat Ownersco-operated. The State Commission found that rest of the demands of the complainants were attended to, except installation of Generator/Transformer. The petitioners were directed to install the Generator. The State Commission gave the following directions to the respondents:- 1. It appears that rest of the demands of the Complainants are attended to except installation of Generator/Transformer. Judgment Debtor is bound to keep-up its promise as undertaken under the Memo, but he failed. The District Forum has thoroughly considered all the aspects in the matter and rightly come to the conclusion that there is omit to comply the said Order which was reached finality. Hence, issued direction to the OP to install the Generator as contemplated and also to pay the costs. That order appears to be just and proper. On the other hand, the Appellant has failed to show before this Commission that impugned order is erroneous and that it suffers from any legal infirmity, unsustainable in law or that the said order suffers from any error apparent on the face of record requiring our interference. Appeal appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly, we answer Point Nos. (i) & (ii) and proceed to pass the following order : ORDER Appeal is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute, no order as to costs. Deposit if any made by the Appellant in this Appeal before this Commission, be transmitted to the District Forum concerned for needful 4. We have heard counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were required to install the Generator and the needful has been done. He explained that the petitioners were not liable to install the Transformer. 5. For the following reasons, we find