M/S. NITISHREE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs INDERDEEP SINGH & ORS.

In this Execution Appeal, the impugned order dated 27.07.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Execution Application No. 50/2015 has been challenged. The facts of the case are that in Consumer Complaint No. 43/2014 filed by the present respondents/complainants against the appellants, it was alleged that the complainants had booked a flat with the appellant builders, but despite deposit of a substantial sum of money with them as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, they were not able to hand over the possession of the flat, even after the lapse of grace period of three months. It was requested that the OPs should be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 23,92,243/- as principal and Rs. 3,96,295/- as interest @ 24% per annum compounded quarterly upto 31.12.2013, alongwith some other amounts as liquidated damages and compensation. The said consumer complaint was decided by the State Commission vide order dated 23.04.2015, vide which, the complaint was partly allowed against the OPs No. 1 to 4 and they were directed to refund the sum of Rs. 23,92,243/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realisation. They were also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation. Thereafter, an execution application was filed before the State Commission, which has been decided vide impugned order dated 27.07.2016, in which it has been stated as follows:-

M.A. No. 1333 of 2016

Heard.

This application by respondent nos. 1 to 4 is for allowing them to settle the entire amount awarded against them, by way of allotment of flat equivalent to the value of the amount, so awarded, and to allow them to pay that amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 50,000/-. It has been stated by the counsel for the applicants/complainants that the offer, so made in the application, is not acceptable to the complainants. The application is dismissed accordingly.

Main Execution Application

The proclamation was duly published against P.C. Mishra, Director and Bimal Garg, General Manager of the respondent-Company, under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In-spite of that they have not come present. They are hereby declared as "Proclaimed Offenders". In view of the prayer made by the counsel for the applicants, the notice regarding these persons, having been declared "Proclaimed Offenders", be published in "The Tribune", on the deposit of the publication charges.

Now the file be put up after the arrest of those respondents, so as to take proceedings against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

From a perusal of the above order, it is made out that the appellants filed a miscellaneous application before the State Commission, stating that they should be allowed to settle the entire amount awarded against them by way of allotment of flat, equivalent to the value of the amount awarded, or they should be allowed to pay the decree amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 50,000/- each, till payment of the entire amount. It has been stated by the State Commission that the offer so made in the application was not acceptable to the complainants. The miscellaneous application was ordered to be dismissed.

It is clear from the facts of the case that in case the appellants wanted to make an alternative offer, they could have challenged the order dated 23.04.2015, passed by the State Commission, but they chose not to do so. Since the order dated 23.04.2015 has already become final, as admitted by the learned counsel at the time of hearing the present execution appeal, the miscellaneous application could not have been allowed.

In so far as the main execution application is concerned, the State Commission stated that in spite of the proclamation published against the Director and General Manager of the appellant Company under Section 82 Cr.P.C., they did not come present and hence, were declared as Proclaimed Offenders. During hearing before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not offer any satisfactory explanation as to why the judgement debtors did not present themselves before the State Commission. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the compliance of the order passed by the consumer fora is made by following procedure under Section 25 or Section 27 of the said Act. It is not for the Judgement Debtor to choose, which manner of execution is to be followed. It was the duty of the Judgment Debtor, therefore, to put in appearance before the State Commission and state their view point before them. There is no merit in the present appeal therefore, and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limine. The order passed by the State Commission is upheld.