1.       The present appeal execution has been filed under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) by the appellants – decree holders assailing the Order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in review application No. 31 of 2021 in Execution Application No. 48 of 2021 in Consumer Complaint No. 552 of 2019, titled as Krishan Kumar Sharma and another versus Omaxe Limited and another whereby the review application has been dismissed.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants – decree holders and the learned counsel for the respondents – judgment debtors and perused the record.

3.       Although the registry has reported that there is a delay of 72 days in filing the appeal execution but in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, the appeal execution is within limitation.

4.       The facts, in brief, are that on 30.03.2011 the appellants - decree holders booked a flat with the respondents – judgement debtors. The flat in question was allotted to the appellants – decree holders on 11.10.2011. The agreement to sell was executed on 04.09.2012. The possession was to be handed over within 30 months (24 months plus 06 months grace period) from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. by 03.04.2015. It is alleged that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 50,05,978/- (i.e. more than 95% of the total cost) till 19.01.2013 and the remaining amount of Rs.36,669/- was paid in July, 2018 as per the demand raised by the respondents – judgment debtors. It is alleged that the respondent – judgment debtors have failed to hand over the physical possession of the flat to the complainants within the stipulated period.

5.       Being aggrieved, the appellants / complainants – decree holder filed complaint bearing no. 552 of 2019 before the State Commission.

6.       The State Commission vide its order dated 08.01.2020 partly allowed the complaint against the respondents – judgment debtors and directed them to deliver the complete and legal possession to complainants alongwith completion/occupation certificate after removing the minor deficiencies as pointed out in the report of the local commissioner, subject to payment of balance sale consideration, without any interest and penalty thereon. The State Commission also directed to pay compensation @10/- per square feet per month for the super area for the period of delay, as per clause 23 of the allotment/agreement from 04.03.2015 till the date of complete and legal delivery of possession along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental harassment as well as towards the litigation expenses.

7.       On 28.02.2021, the appellants / complainants – decree holders have filed an execution application No. 48 of 2021 alleging that respondents – judgment debtors have failed to comply with the order dated 08.01.2020. The executing court, vide order dated 07.09.2021 disposed of the execution application observing that there was no seepage in the flat in question and the complainants are themselves are satisfied to this extent. As regards the grievance of the complainants – decree holder that the almirah should have been installed in the master bed room, it is stated that the almirah is in one room (guestroom) of every flat including the complainants.

8.       Not satisfied with the order dated 07.09.2021, the complainants – decree holders filed a review application no. 31 of 2021 before the State Commission.

9.       The State Commission, vide its order dated 06.12.2021, dismissed the review application, observing that there was no seepage in the flat and there is no error apparent on the face of record. It is also observed that as regards the almirah in guest room, learned counsel for the complainants – decree holders has not raised any objection or query.

10.     Aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2021, the instant appeal execution has been filed before this Commission.

11.     Before this commission, the counsel for the appellants / complainants – decree holders argued that the State Commission has passed the order to remove the deficiencies as pointed out in the report submitted by the local commissioner but the respondents – judgment debtors have failed to comply with the order of the State Commission in toto and the respondents- judgment debtors are liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further, it was argued that the Local Commissioner's report shows that "bedroom has a damp wall and moisture is visible due to leakage of water from the roof, the master bedroom does not have a wardrobe, which is missing and the club house is under process."

He further argued that the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 has been passed by a bench of the State Commission which was not headed by the President and which is in gross violation of Section 43 of the Consumer Protection Act (Qualifications).

12.     Further, it was argued that during the pendency of the execution application, on 25.06.2021 the respondents - judgment debtors produced two demand drafts No.034997 dated 23.06.2020 for a sum of Rs. 2,67,487/- in favor of Mr. Krishan Kumar Sharma, decree holder No.1, and No.034996 dated 23.06.2020 of ₹67,487/- in favor of Mrs. Neeraj Sharma, decree holder no. 2. Said demand drafts, as directed by the State the Commission, were duly taken into consideration after erroneously relying upon the mis-calculations of the respondents - judgment debtors. Thereafter these two drafts were only a part payment and due to clerical error, they had been presented as complete payment and hence are now placed for the purpose of correction.  Moreover, the Local Commissioner also mentioned in his report that some finishing is still pending. Therefore, in these circumstances, respondents – judgment debtors cannot compel the decree holders to take the possession of incomplete unit, without fulfilling his liabilities and providing a bona-fide towards his completion of the various laws of land under relevant acts like PAPRA.

13.     The counsel for the respondents – judgment debtors rebutted the complainant’s arguments and argued that the Local Commissioner submitted his report dated 20.11.2019 to the effect that flat of the complainant is complete barring finishing touches. He further argued that vide order dated 17.08.2021 in execution application no. 48 of 2021, the State Commission noted that the main ground of the complainant is that there is seepage in the flat and wooden almirah has been installed in the guest room instead of master bedroom.  He further argued that the State Commission has observed that the defects as pointed out in the local commissioner’s report have been removed, therefore, the order has been complied.  He further argued that the appellant / complainant – decree holders agreed before the State Commission that there was no seepage. He further argued that respondents – judgment debtors offered the possession of the flat to the complainant on 14.02.2019 and the occupancy certificate of the flat was already issued by the competent authority on 18.01.2019. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the present appeal execution is liable to be dismissed. As regards the payment of compensation awarded by the State Commission is concerned, it is seen that the complainant has not raised any grievance at the time of filing of the execution application as also when the execution order was passed.

14.     It is seen that during the hearing of execution application no. 48 of 2021, it was ordered to inspect the flat and both parties visited the premises and took photographs. After inspection, the complainants admitted the fact that there was no seepage in the room and also when the builder contended regarding the almirah installed in the guest room of every flat, the complainant or his counsel raised no objection to it.

15.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the grievances of the complainant – decree holders have already been addressed.

16.     In view of the above discussion, we find no illegality in the order dated 06.12.2021 of the State Commission and the same is upheld.

17.     The appeal execution is dismissed.