DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER 1. This appeal (execution) has been filed against the Order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the State Commission in execution application no. 175 of 2019 in complaint no. 391 of 2016. 2. We have heard the appellant in person (the ‘complainant’) and the learned counsel for the respondents / judgment debtors and have perused the record. 3. Complaint no. 391 of 2016 of the complainant along with bunch of complaints was partly allowed by the State Commission vide its Order dated 13.10.2016. The award made is reproduced below for reference: Consumer Complaint bearing No.: 323/16, 332/2016 and 391/2016 The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), in each of these cases, are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:- - To hand over physical possession of the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount(s), by the complainant(s) due against them.
- Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).
- To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant(s), from the respective dates of undertaking(s) till 31.10.2016, in case of complaint Nos.323/2016 & 332/2016 and w.e.f. 16.01.2015 till 31.10.2016 in respect of complaint bearing No.391/2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
- To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amounts, due to the complainant(s) w.e.f. 01.11.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
- Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.
4. Against the said Order of the State Commission, appeal no. 1595 of 2016 under section 19 of the Act 1986 was filed by the respondents / judgment debtors before this Commission. This Commission vide Orders dated 01.08.2018 and dated 07.09.2018 dismissed the said appeal. 5. During the interregnum period, the appellant – decree holder filed an execution application no. 339 of 2017 on 13.09.2017 before the State Commission for directing the developer to deliver the actual / physical possession of the floor and for completing the remaining work of the floor. The State Commission vide Order dated 22.01.2018 directed the appellant – decree holder to deposit the remaining amount with the respondents / judgment debtors within two months and also directed the respondents / judgment debtors to hand over the actual physical possession of the floor to the appellant / decree holder within 15 days of depositing the remaining amount by the appellant / decree holder. Liberty was also granted to the decree holder to file a fresh execution application, if there is no compliance to the order passed. In compliance of the order dated 22.01.2018, the appellant – decree holder deposited the remaining amount on 29.03.2019 but the respondents / judgment debtors failed to deliver the actual physical possession to the appellant / decree holder. 6. The appellant / decree holder filed another execution no. EA/162/2018 before the State Commission inter alia stating the said fact that he has deposited the amount claimed i.e. more than Rs. 14 lacs and also the amount towards Welfare Association Fund with the respondents / judgment debtors. Vide its Order dated 28.05.2018 the State Commission adjourned the said execution to 20.06.2018 giving liberty to the appellant / decree holder to visit the unit 09.06.2018 and get possession. 7. Against the Orders dated 01.08.2018 and dated 07.09.2018 of this Commission, the respondents / judgment debtors approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing special leave petition. The respondents / judgment debtors had filed a pecuniary chart indicating the amount to be paid to the decree holders and other claimants by the respondents – judgment debtors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 26.02.2019 disposed of the SLP. As per the chart submitted by the judgment debtors before Hon’ble Supreme Court, an amount of Rs.9,46,554/- was required to be paid to the appellant / decree holder by the respondents / judgment debtors. It is stated by the appellant / decree holder that in compliance of the Order dated 26.02.2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgment debtors have paid an amount of Rs. 8,12,229.03 and an amount of Rs. 1,34,325/- has not been paid to the appellant / decree holder. In addition, the appellant – decree holder has claimed that he paid an amount of Rs. 61,46,042.40 ps. to the respondents / judgment debtors whereas he was required to paid Rs. 61,16,939.55 ps. i.e. Rs. 29,102.85 in excess and fulfilled all the formalities required by the respondents / judgment debtors. 8. In the execution application no. 175 of 2019 filed before the State Commission, the appellant / decree holder claimed total amount of Rs. 3,06,835/- (Rs.1,34,325/- being the differential amount of Rs.9,46,554/- which was required to be refunded to the complainant / decree holder by the judgment debtor and the amount of Rs. 8,12,229.30, the amount paid to the appellant / judgment debtor by the respondents / judgment debtors + Rs. 29,102/- deposited in excess and the amount of Rs. 1,43,407/- claimed towards compensation for delay of 70 days in giving the possession of the floor). 9. The State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 12.07.2019 in the present appeal (execution) has disposed of the complainant’s execution application no. 175 of 2019. The Order dated 12.07.2019 is reproduced below for reference: PRESENT: Sh. Parminder Kumar, decree holder / complainant in person. Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the judgment debtors. Dated: 12/7/2019 Vakalatnama has not filed on behalf of the judgment debtors. Be filed on the next date of hearing. At the time of arguments, the matter has amicably been settled between the parties. Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the judgment debtors was claiming interest amount, which had accrued on account of FDR on amount of deposit made in this Commission i.e. to the extent of Rs. 46,000/-. The said amount already stood released in favour of the decree holder / complainant. Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the judgement debtors has agreed that the judgment debtors do not press the aforesaid claim to settle the dispute. The decree holder / complainant also states that no claim is left against the judgment debtors. In view of the above, the execution application has disposed of having been fully satisfied. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 10. The present appeal (execution) has been filed by the complainant / decree holder praying for setting aside the Order dated 12.07.2019 of the State Commission and for a direction to the respondents / judgment debtors to pay the amount of Rs. 3,06,834.85 along with compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-. 11. Learned counsel for the developer / judgment debtor submits that the appellant / decree holder stated before the State Commission that no claim is left against the judgment debtors, the appellant / decree holder does not have the right of appeal (execution) and therefore, the appeal (execution) does not lie and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. In view of the statement made by Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the respondents / judgment debtors to the effect that the judgment debtor would not press the aforesaid claim to settle the dispute and the statement made by the appellant / decree holder in person that no claim is left against the judgment debtors, the State Commission vide Order dated 12.07.2019 disposed of the execution application having been fully satisfied. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that once the matter has been settled before the State Commission in the third execution application i.e. E.A. No. 175 of 2019, the matter cannot be re-opened by way of filing an appeal (execution) before this Commission. It is not the case of the appellant that the statement made before the State Commission that no claim is left against the judgment debtors was made under coercion or under duress. The appellant has not led any evidence to show that the recording made by the State Commission regarding settlement is incorrect. The matter has attained finality. 14. In this view of the matter, the appeal (execution) has no merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. |
