In Complaint No.531/1993 filed by the respondent, District Forum gave the following direction :

“Hence, the case of the plaintiff is partially admitted and the defendant is ordered that final judgment in the case of Kailash Chand vs. Rajasthan Housing Board passed in 22/93 shall determine the cost of the house and on that basis cost would be determined along with the direction that defendant may not charge 2% more interest than that being charged by HUDCO.  The amount deposited by the plaintiff may be set off after production of copy of challan by the plaintiff and the plaintiff may be handed over possession of the house after amount deposited byhim as per Rules.”

          This order attained finality.  In Execution Application filed by the respondent, the District Forum disposed of the case in the following terms :

“It would be appropriate to order the Forum to use its inherent powers if the defendant fails to hand over possession to the plaintiff after obligation of payment fulfilled by him.  In that event the total amount of Rs.2,31,614/- and now payable amount Rs.1,25,814/- will earn an interest @ 15% towards the plaintiff by the defendant Housing Board and the defendant Housing Board under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be liable for deficiency in service.”

          As per the impugned order passed by the District Forum (reproduced in the first paragraph), the petitioner was debarred from charging 2% more interest than that being charged by HUDCO and the petitioner was to charge the price as per the final judgment in the case of Kailash Chand vs. Rajasthan Housing Board passed in Case No.22/93.  In Execution, the petitioner had agreed to the proposal to pay Rs.2,31,614/- which the respondent has already paid on the handing over of the possession to him.  Nothing to the contrary has been shown.  We find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum. 

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the payment made by the respondent is as per the order passed by the District Forum in the main complaint.  Dismissed.