BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER For the Appellant Mr Harjeet Singh Chanchan and Mr Abhijet Varshney, Advocates For the Respondent Mr Johri Mal, Advocate for R 1 NONE for R 2 and 3 ORDER PER SUBHASH CHANDRA 1. This appeal execution under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, the ‘Act’) has been filed challenging the order dated 18.12.2020 in EA No. 397 of 2018 in Consumer Complaint No. 50 of 2018 of the Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’). 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records carefully. 3. The short issue in this appeal is whether the State Commission erred in dismissing EA 397 of 2018 filed before it by the appellant. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that EA 397/2018 arose from order dated 05.12.2013 in CC No. 10 of 2013 wherein the State Commission held the respondent Housing Society not deficient in service in not including the appellant’s name in the seniority list for allotment of flats in its project as the same was prepared as per guidelines of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies to include such members who had deposited Rs 20,00,000/-. This order was set aside in First Appeal No. 11 of 2014 by this Commission vide order dated 22.12.2017 holding that the appellant herein was eligible for allotment of a flat and directing that the respondent Housing Society allot a flat from the flats set apart as reserved on deposit of Rs 2,01,260/- as per the Rules of the Society stating that “Allotment shall be governed by the rules of the Society and other related rules and the possession be given within a period of three months from the date of this order.” Alleging non- compliance, appellant filed EA 397/2018 which was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground that Flat No. 1217, Block D had been allotted to the appellant vide order dated 19.03.2016 and hence order of the National Commission in FA 11/2014 stood complied with. It was also held that respondents 2 and 3, the President and Secretary of the Society, were not liable in execution proceedings as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.K. Singla Vs. Avtar Singh Saini & Ors., (2019) CPJ 3 (SC) holding that the Secretary could not be held liable in execution proceedings for default by the Society. The Appeal Execution impugns this order praying that it be set aside, and proceedings initiated under Section 27 of the Act. 5. The appellant’s case is that the State Commission erred in holding that the mere allotment of a flat in Block D instead of as directed in the order of this Commission vide order dated 22.11.2017 in FA 11/2014 and the raising of a demand of Rs 13,50,000/- instead of the amount of Rs 2,01,260/- amounted to compliance of the order. 6. The respondent, on the other hand, contends that the order in FA 11/2014 stands complied with as Flat No. D-1217 has been allotted and a demand for payment of Rs 13,50,000/- as per Rules had been raised vide letter dated 19.03.2016 which the appellant had not complied with. 7. The order of the State Commission in FA 11/2014 reads as under: 13. It is seen from the written statement filed by the respondent that two flats had been kept reserved subject to decision of present appeal. From the above examination it comes out that had respondent No. one not debited interest amount from the account of the member he would have been eligible to get the allotment. There was no separate notice given for payment of interest by respondent No. 1 and the amount was directly deducted from the account just in second fortnight of December, 2011. Had Society asked to deposit the interest amount before 31st of December 2011, it was quite possible that the interest amount could have been deposited by the member within 31.12.2011. As the time was given up to 10.02.2012, the appellant was not obliged to deposit amount before 31.12.2011. Hence no fault is attributable to the appellant member of the Society and therefore he is eligible for the flat. 14. Based on the above discussion, I find that the appellant is eligible to get the flat. However, he has to deposit the interest amount of Rs 2,01,260/- as per the rules of the Society. The respondent No. 1 Society shall allot the flat out of the reserved flats to the appellant member treating him as an eligible member. Allotment shall be governed by the rules of the Society and other related rules and the possession be given within a period of three months from the date of this order. 8. From the foregoing it is manifest that the direction to the Society to allot a flat from the reserved flats was subject to the payment of Rs 2,01,260/- and the Rules of the Society and other Rules. The appellant has not established in this Appeal how the allotment letter is contrary to the Rules of either the Society or any other Rules applicable. As per the order sought to be executed, as extracted above, there is no direction with regard to any particular flat to be allotted. Therefore, the Society cannot be faulted in allotting the flat as per order dated 19.03.2016. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find the impugned order to be arbitrary or perverse. Accordingly, there is no ground that warrants interference in the said order. The Appeal Execution is found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed. 10. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of with this order. | 
