1.       This Appeal Execution is directed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission) dated 29.01.2021 in EX-58/17, whereby the State Commission issued non-bailable warrants against the Appellants/Judgment Debtors.

2.       State Commission, vide order dated 25.08.2017 passed in CC/281/2016 directed the Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.48,07,542/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of refund within 30 days. Since the Appellant/Opposite Party failed to comply with the order dated 25.08.2017, the Complainant/Decree Holder filed Execution Petition before the State Commission. In the Execution Petition, on 29.01.2021, the State Commission passed the following order: -

“Sh. Mehta, Advocate Counsel for JD states that he has already moved an application dated 25.01.2021 for extension of time to make the payment. Counsel for DH sates that he has not received copy of the said application.

          Counsel for JD states that JD does not have amount to comply with the order. The judgment was passed on 25.08.2017. More than 3 years have passed. The JD wants to make a fun of the Court Proceedings by repeatedly referring to the role of LIC. The last payment was made by pay order dated 23.03.2018.

          Counsel for JD states that according to decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Bhandari Engineer Builders, the execution has to start from filing of affidavit of assets by JD. I do not think that the said judgment help JD. If JD wants to take shelter of the said judgment, it should have filed the affidavit of its assets by now. The application of JD is dismissed.

          On the last date i.e. 12.01.2021 NBWs were directed to be issued against the director of JD for 25.02.2021. Later on, the counsel for JD stated that he has instruction to make the payment after disposing of the flat and so JD was directed to bring Rs.10,00,000/- at least today. The JD has failed to comply with the same.

          Issue NBW against the Director of JD for 25.02.2021 already fixed.”

3.       Aggrieved by the impugned order, Appellants/Judgment Debtors have filed the instant Appeal.

4.       Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellants and carefully gone through the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Judgment Debtors submitted that the Appellants are not evading execution proceedings and had been appearing before the executing Court regularly. The Appellants have made sincere efforts to comply with the order of the State Commission dated 25.08.2017. The State Commission while passing the impugned failed to appreciate that the Appellants were facing financial constraints. The State Commission while passing the impugned order had not followed the procedure and directly issued NBW against the Appellants. He also submitted that the State Commission should have clarified in the order dated 25.08.2017 as to whom the payment was to be made.  The impugned order was not sustainable and the same be set aside.

5.       Learned Counsel for the Appellants tried to show the bonafides on the part of the Appellants to execute the order dated 25.08.2017. Nothing prevented the Appellants/Judgment Debtors from executing the order of the State Commission. The judgment of Delhi High Court in Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. was placed before the State Commission and the State Commission was not convinced that the judgment would be of any help in the case before it. However, the said judgment has not been filed before this Commission. The State Commission clearly noted that the Appellant sought to make fun of the Court proceedings by repeatedly referring to the role of LIC. The order of the State Commission was passed on 25.08.2017 and more than three years had passed. The Appellant/Judgment Debtor was directed to bring Rs.10 lakhs at least which he failed to comply before the State Commission. Under these compelling reasons the State Commission was forced to issue non-bailable warrants against the Directors of the Judgment Debtor for 25.02.2021. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, warranting interference in the Appellate jurisdiction. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.