PER JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER In this appeal, there is challenge to order dated 27.3.2009, passed by State Commission Delhi, in the execution proceeding. 2. Respondent/complainant filed a complaint in the year 1998, against appellant claiming compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- for not allotting the flat on hire purchase basis but allotting incomplete flat on cash down basis, without basic amenities. 3. State Commission, vide order dated 6.7.2007, disposed of the complaint and passed the following directions:- . However, in our view, lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- for not providing these amenities or facilities at the time of allotment or taking possession of the flat will meet the ends of justice. 6. Possession of the flat if already not handed over be handed over of its availability on payment of balance amount, if any, as per rules. Complaint is disposed of in above terms. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 4. It is the case of appellant that after receiving the order of State Commission, respondent deposited Rs.5,08,150/- with the appellant on its own on 10.9.2007, without waiting to know the status of the flat. Later on, respondent filed an execution petition before the State Commission, which was disposed of, vide impugned order. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as per main order of the State Commission, it gave liberty to the appellant to charge the price of flat as per rules, whereas in execution proceeding the same was withdrawn, which was not permissible under the law. 6. Other contention made by learned counsel is that as per restoration policy of the appellant, respondent was required to pay 12% interest for first month of default and 18% per annum for subsequent months upto 31st March, 2002 and thereafter 15% compounding annually upto 31st March, 2009. 7. In support, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow & Anr. Vs. Laxmi Nath Misra & Ors. II (2011) CPJ 23 (SC) as well as a decision of this Commission in Delhi Development Authority Vs. S.C. Soren (Revision Petition No. 4590 of 2008 decided on 03.03.2009). 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has contended that appellant did not challenge the main order of the State Commission and now in the execution proceedings, no new case can be introduced and further no restoration policy have been placed on record. 9. State Commission in its impugned order observed; he main grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of having made full payment towards the cost of the flat respondent has raised payment of interest which accrued during the pendency of the complaint. Vide impugned order dated 6.7.08, the respondent was directed to hand over the possession of the flat if already not handed over in case of its availability on payment of balance amount, if any, as per rules. It is under these rules that the interest is being charged. As per rules does not mean that it is liable to charge interest for the period during which the complainant was not obliged to take possession. It appears that the respondent is misconstruing this order. Once the service provider has been held guilty for deficiency in service and once it is held that the consumer was not obliged to take the possession of the flat which was not in habitable condition because of the absence of basic amenities like electricity, water etc., the respondent is not entitled for charging any interest. Respondent shall now hand over the possession of the flat within 15 days because the complainant has made the full payment of the basic cost of the flat. 10. Since, main order dated 6.7.2007, was not challenged by the appellant, the same has become final. In the main order, State Commission has observed:- . The main grievance of the complainant appears to be the allotment of flat and delivery of possession thereof without providing any essential amenities of electricity and water etc. We have taken a view that whenever service provider like DDA or any other organization like them enters into a contract to construct a house or flat for the consumer, it has to provide basic amenities of electricity and water and without providing these amenities if possession is taken by the consumer it has to be deemed as a part and not full possession as without these amenities it is difficult to enjoy or live in the house or the flat as it causes immense inconvenience, mental agony, harassment and physical discomfort. 5. However, in our view, lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- for not providing these amenities or facilities at the time of allotment or taking possession of the flat will meet the ends of justice. 6. Possession of the flat if already not handed over be handed over in case of its availability on payment of balance amount, if any, as per rules. Complaint is disposed of in above terms. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 11. It is well settled that executing court cannot go behind the decree/award. It has been proved on record that basic amenities or the facilities at the time of allotment /possession of the flat were not provided to the respondent and there is no dispute to this fact. 12. State Commission in categorical terms has observed that s per rules does not mean that DDA is liable to charge interest for the period during which complainant was not obliged to take possession. 13. Once appellant has been held guilty for deficiency in service thus, the consumer was not obliged to take possession of the flat, which was not in habitable condition because of the absence of basic amenities like electricity, water etc. Under these circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to charge any interest and respondent cannot be penalized for no fault of his own. Present appeal filed by the appellant is wholly misconceived and is meritless. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand). Costs be paid to the respondent. 14. Appellant is directed to deposit the said costs by way of demand draft in the name of respondent, within four weeks. However, demand draft shall be paid to the respondent only after expiry of period of appeal or revision preferred, if any. 15. Pending application, if any, stand disposed of.