1.     This Appeal Execution No.132 of 2023 u/s 27 ‘A’ of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) impugns order dated 15.02.2022 and 15.02.2023 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in Execution Application No.152 of 2021. The order dated 15.02.2022 imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- per day till the date of payment of the installments in satisfaction of the decree of the State Commission by the Appellants/ Judgment Debtor.

2.      The appellant contends that the entire decretal amount has been paid by it and that cost of Rs.5,000/- per day calculated as on 06.01.2023 amounted to Rs.10,55,000/- which could not be paid by it on account of various difficulties. In view of the inability to make the payment of Rs.10,55,000/-, the State Commission vide impugned order dated 15.02.2023 issued warrants of attachment against the appellant by way of attachment of its property at Parsvnath Tower, near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, New Delhi 110032 and attachment of Bank Account No.132010200011741 with Axis Bank, Shahdara, New Delhi.

3.     The appeal has been opposed by the respondent on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the order of the State Commission dated 04.08.2021 which necessitated the filing of Execution Application No.152 of 2021 under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act, seeking recovery of the amount ordered by way of attachment of the movable and immovable properties of the Appellant. The State Commission issued warrants of attachment dated 30.11.2021 in order to execute the decree. On 15.02.2022, the appellant had filed an affidavit of the General Manager enclosing a schedule of payment undertaking that in the event of default the respondent would be compensated with the penalty of Rs.10,000/- per default or any direction which the State Commission may impose. The schedule of payment was spread over seven installments commencing from 01.03.2022 to 01.09.2022. Accordingly, the State Commission kept the order dated 30.11.2021 in abeyance subject to the condition that the Judgment Debtor comply with the undertaking given, failing which it would be liable to pay Rs.5,000/- per day till the date of payments of the installments. Since the schedule was not complied with, the State Commission passed the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 directing issuance of fresh warrants of attachment. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the judgment dated 04.08.2021 had not been challenged and had attained finality, the direction of the State Commission was justified and should not be interfered with.  

4.     Per contra, it is the case of Judgment Debtor that it did not have any malafide intentions to willfully disobey the order of the Hon’ble State Commission but the delay was due to reasons of severe paucity of funds which was aggravated due to Covid 19 pandemic. It was also submitted that it had complied with the decree and was willing to pay any reasonable amount of compensation to the respondent. It was submitted that the compensation of Rs.5,000/- per day was excessive, in view of the fact that it had complied with the orders and paid the decreetal amount as per the schedule of payments filed by it.

5.     We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

6.     From the facts on record, it is evident that the Judgment Debtor has defaulted on the undertaking given by it in the affidavit of its own General Manager. The order of the State Commission dated 04.08.2021 has already reached finality. The respondents were forced to file an Execution Application in view of the Judgment Debtor failing to comply with the orders of the State Commission. It is only after coercive steps of attachment were taken that the Judgment Debtor came forward to make necessary payments. In view of the undertaking of its own General Manager to comply with the decree and praying for withdrawal of the warrants of attachment, the State Commission considered the same and kept its orders in abeyance.

7.     The order of imposition of cost of Rs.5,000/- was also made conditional and was to apply only in case the Judgment Debtor failed to comply with its own undertaking relating to the schedule of payment submitted by it. The contention that his cost was onerous cannot be accepted since the respondent has only itself to blame for not complying with the directions of the State Commission, despite having been given a long rope in consideration of the difficulties expressed by it. The contention that it was impacted by the adverse financial situation on account of Covid-19 pandemic cannot be accepted since the subsequent order of 15.02.2023 was also after having been given reasonable opportunity to comply with the order of the State Commission. In any case, the affidavit had clearly stated that the Judgment Debtor was open to any other directions that the State Commission would impose.

8.      The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly directed vide its judgment in Rahul S Shah vs Jitendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors., Civil Appeal nos.1659-1660 of 2021 that execution of all decrees is a critical aspect of the delivery of the legal justice system. In case where the payment of money/compensation is involved, the delay in execution has been noted with concern by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been directed that executing courts endeavor to ensure compliance and complete the process within six months. In the instant case, the respondent has been forced to approach the State Commission to execute its order on account of the delay in executing the same by the Judgment Debtor.

9.     For the afore-mentioned reasons and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not entitled to interfere with the orders of the State Commission which has attempted to enforce its own orders in the light of the admitted delay on the part of Judgment Debtor. In a welfare legislation such as the Consumer Protection Act, the actions of the State Commission in the said case cannot be considered to be excessive or without jurisdiction.

10.   In view of the discussion above, the complaint is found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed, with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the respondent within four weeks of this order.

11.   All pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of with this order.