27.01.2015.

MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.

The instant appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act is directed against the orders being Nos. 35 dated 06.06.2013 & 36 dated 26.06.2013 passed by Ld. District Forum, Howrah in Execution Case No. EA/17/2011 filed by one Sukumar Chowdhury, the Decree Holder for execution of the final order passed in the complaint case being No. 43 of 2010.  The Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint case on contest against the O.Ps directing the O.P. No. 1 to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant being confirmed by the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in respect of the scheduled flat mentioned in the Scheduled ‘A’ of the petition of complaint along with a further direction to the O.P. No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and also litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- within one month from the date of communication.

The Complainant being the Decree Holder filed the Execution Case being No. EA/17/2011 for execution of the decree against the JDR and vide order being No. 35 dated 06.06.2013 the Ld. District Forum directed the Decree Holder to pay Rs.30,000/- to the JDR by 26.06.2014 for excess area of 26 sq. ft. delivered to the Decree Holder by the JDR.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order the Decree Holder has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that on 22.11.2012 the JDR executed and registered the Sale Deed in favour of the Complainant in respect of the total area of 826 sq. ft. after receiving the entire amount of consideration but, on the contrary, the O.P. did not pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.  But the Ld. Executing Court directed the Decree Holder to pay Rs.30,000/- to the JDR although it is settled principle that the Ld. Executing court cannot go beyond the decree.

In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the JDR did not comply with the order of the complaint case since the developer only executed and registered the Deed of Conveyance but demanded extra amount on the pretext of extra area and also neither paid the amount of compensation nor did pay litigation cost.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent – Developer has submitted that the extra area is an admitted fact and the Appellant must pay extra amount for that.

Having heard submissions made by the parties and on perusal of materials on record it appears that the Ld. District Forum passed an order in the complaint case with certain directions to the O.P. – Developer.  Subsequently, the Decree Holder filed an execution case for execution of the said order.  In the execution stage Ld. Executing Court altered the direction given by the Ld. District Forum in respect of payment of compensation by the by the JDR.  Since there was no direction in the final order of the complaint case about the alleged excess area and the payment by Complainant thereof, we are of the view that the Ld. District Forum had gone beyond the decree which was against the spirit of law.  This direction is, therefore, not sustainable.

In the result, the appeal succeeds.

Hence, ORDERED that, the appeal is allowed on contest but without any order as to cost.  The impugned orders dated 06.06.2013 and 26.06.2013 are set aside.  Ld. District Forum is directed to proceed with the execution case for execution of the order dated 25.04.2011 passed in the original complaint case in accordance with the law.