Chandigarh

StateCommission

EA/67/2019

Virender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Kaajla Adv.

22 May 2019

ORDER

          Today in Court, Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the judgment debtors has handed over a demand draft bearing No.519281 dated 02.05.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,85,000/- to Sh. Narender Kaajla, Advocate, Counsel for the decree holder against receipt, towards compensation awarded qua mental agony and physical harassment and litigation charges. Photocopy of the said demand draft has been kept on file.

                It is stated by Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the judgment debtors that to waive of that amount, an application has already been moved before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the matter may be taken up thereafter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

                Sh. Narender Kaajla, Advocate, Counsel for the decree holder assures the Court that an undertaking to the effect that in case, any adverse order is passed against the decree holder from the higher Court, he will refund the amount paid within seven working days, will be placed on record. Let the aforesaid undertaking be filed with the Secretary of this Commission within 15 days from today.

                We make it very clear that the amount will be refunded by the decree holder with interest @9% p.a. (simple) from today till the time of return of the said amount.

                Sh. Narender Kaajla, Advocate, Counsel for the decree holder states that possession of the unit, in question, was offered late and as such, compensation was to be granted up to the date of handing over of possession. However, to the contrary, Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the judgment debtors states that delay in offering possession was caused on account of the decree holders not coming forward to get possession of the unit, in question. We are not going to accept the contention raised by Sh. Narender Kaajla, Advocate, Counsel for the decree holder. If there was any delay, as alleged, issue should have been raised by the decree holder then and there or before the Hon’ble Apex Court when the case was pending consideration. We cannot go beyond the decree passed by this Commission and further orders passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and then by Hon’ble Apex Court. Otherwise also, taking note of Doctrine of Merger, in the manner referred to above, no further relief can be granted to the decree holders. Beyond this issue, Sh. Narender Kaajla, Advocate, Counsel for the decree holder states that the entire liability stands disposed of.

                This execution application stands disposed of   having been fully satisfied.

                Certified copies of this order be given dasti to the parties/their Counsel free of charge.