STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

Sandeep Chowdhry, H.No.2230 (Ground Floor), Sector-45-C, Chandigarh-160047

                                                                                      … Appellant

V E R S U S

Airtel Store (Managing Director/Engineer/Sales Man/Sales Woman), SCO 491, Near ICICI Bank, Sector-35-C, Chandigarh-160022. 

                                                                                      ..... Respondent

Appeal  against order dated 11.05.2024 passed in Consumer Complaint No.52/2024 by the National Lok Adalat held in District Commission-I, U.T.Chandigarh.

BEFORE:    HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                     MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

For the appellant         :     Sh.Sandeep Chowdhry in person.

For the respondent      :     Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi,  Advocate

 PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                   In fact, Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2024 titled as Sandeep Chowdhry Vs Airtel Store  was settled before the National Lok Adalat held in District Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T.Chandigarh on 11.5.2024 and against the said order this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant.

2.          As per facts of this case,  the Learned Counsel for the respondent (Opposite Party) suffered a statement on 2.5.2024 before the District Commission that the matter stood settled between the parties and as per settlement, bill amount of Rs.1419.39 paise already issued to the complainant would be waived of by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days. Further, as per settlement, cheque dated 2.5.2024 for an amount of Rs.3500/- was handed over to the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim. Thus,  in view of the statement of the Counsel for the respondent/OP, the complainant made a statement before the Ld. District Commission for disposing of the complaint in terms of the settlement. Accordingly the complaint was disposed of as settled on 11.5.2024 in the National Lok Adalat in the presence of the complainant.

3.           Instead of filing an execution for not waiving of bill of Rs.1419.39, the complainant preferred this appeal seeking directions to the respondent/OP to pay atleast fifty percent of the legal cost to be imposed by the Chandigarh Housing Board for reviving the cancellation of the flat  which was done by the Chandigarh Housing Board as the dish installed by the OP blocked the balcony which was violation of the regulations of the Chandigarh Housing Board entailing cancellation of the flat  and for grant of compensation for dragging him into this unwanted/unnecessary  litigation.

4.                 On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent stated that the bill amount of  Rs.1419.39 has already been waived off. He further stated that this appeal is not maintainable as no appeal lies against the order passed by the National Lok Adalat.

 5.              It is true that order passed by the National Lok Adalat is deemed a decree of a civil court and as such it is binding upon the parties. Since  it is an executable decree and in case, the bill amount of Rs.1419.39 was not waived of by the respondent/OP within the stipulated period, it could have filed an execution application before the executing Court. When the matter has already been settled between the parties, now it cannot be agitated for grant of more compensation, or otherwise.

6.               In this view of the matter, no interference is called for and this appeal is ordered to be filed, being not maintainable.  In case, any amount still remains unpaid as per the settlement arrived at between the parties, the appellant/complainant may file execution application before the Ld. Lower Commission.

7.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

8.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.