National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Allows Appeal Against State Commission Order in Consumer Execution Proceedings — Compliance of Decree for Possession or Refund with Interest. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the execution applications for fresh adjudication, keeping all contentions open.

Tribunals: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal by Kishore Bhardwaj, the complainant/decree holder, against a common order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, in execution applications EA No. 58 of 2020 (under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) and EA No. 81 of 2020 (under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986), both arising from Consumer Complaint No. 394 of 2016. The original complaint was decided by the State Commission on 17.04.2018, directing the opposite parties (M/s Royale Empire & Ors.) to either deliver possession of Flat No. 501 in Block F, Royale Apartments, Peermuchalla, Zirakpur, complete with occupancy certificate, within three months, subject to payment of Rs. 4 lakhs balance by the complainant, along with interest @ 8% p.a. on the deposited amount from 06.09.2013 till possession, compensation of Rs. 50,000 for unfair trade practice, and litigation costs of Rs. 21,000; or in the alternative, if possession was not delivered within the stipulated period, to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from the dates of deposit, along with compensation and costs. The appellant filed execution applications alleging non-compliance. The State Commission passed the impugned common order on 11.09.2024, which the appellant challenged before the National Commission. The National Commission, after hearing the parties, found that the impugned order required reconsideration and set it aside, remanding the execution applications to the State Commission for fresh decision in accordance with law. The National Commission directed the State Commission to decide the applications afresh, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order, and clarified that all contentions of the parties were kept open.

Headnote

A) Consumer Law - Execution of Decree - Sections 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Compliance of Directions - The appeal challenged the common order dated 11.09.2024 of the State Commission in execution applications filed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arising from a decree dated 17.04.2018 directing delivery of possession of a flat or alternative refund with interest. The National Commission allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order, directing the State Commission to decide the execution applications afresh in accordance with law. (Paras 1-3)

B) Consumer Law - Alternative Relief - Decree for Possession or Refund - The original decree dated 17.04.2018 gave the opposite parties an option to either deliver possession of the flat with interest and compensation, or in the alternative, refund the deposited amount with 12% interest and compensation. The execution proceedings required determination of which option was exercised and compliance thereof. (Paras 1-2)

C) Consumer Law - Interest Rate - Refund with Interest - The decree provided for interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the dates of deposit in case of alternative relief of refund. The National Commission did not modify the interest rate but remanded for fresh adjudication. (Para 1)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State Commission erred in its order dated 11.09.2024 in execution proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the appellant/complainant is entitled to compliance of the decree as per the original order dated 17.04.2018.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The National Commission allowed both appeals (AE No. 73/2024 and AE No. 74/2024), set aside the common order dated 11.09.2024 of the State Commission, and remanded the execution applications (EA No. 58/2020 and EA No. 81/2020) to the State Commission for fresh decision in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order. All contentions of the parties were kept open.

Law Points

  • Execution proceedings under Section 25 and Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act
  • 1986
  • Compliance of decree for possession and refund
  • Alternative relief in consumer disputes
  • Interest rate on delayed refund
  • Compensation for unfair trade practice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (NCDRC) (01) 42

Appeal Execution No. NC/AE/73/2024 and NC/AE/74/2024

2025-08-07

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain

Mr. Rajat Sangwa, Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Kishore Bhardwaj (in person), Mr. Ravinder Kumar (in person) for Appellant; Mr. Udit Mendiratta for Respondent

Kishore Bhardwaj

M/s Royale Empire & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order in execution proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Remedy Sought

Setting aside of the common order dated 11.09.2024 of the State Commission and directions for compliance of the decree dated 17.04.2018.

Filing Reason

Non-compliance of the decree dated 17.04.2018 passed by the State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 394 of 2016.

Previous Decisions

State Commission order dated 17.04.2018 in CC No. 394 of 2016 directing delivery of possession or alternative refund with interest, compensation, and costs. State Commission common order dated 11.09.2024 in EA No. 58 of 2020 and EA No. 81 of 2020.

Issues

Whether the State Commission's order dated 11.09.2024 in execution proceedings is sustainable in law. Whether the appellant is entitled to compliance of the decree as per the original order dated 17.04.2018.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the State Commission erred in its order and that the decree has not been complied with. Respondent opposed the appeal, supporting the State Commission's order.

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned order of the State Commission in execution proceedings required reconsideration as it did not properly address the compliance of the decree dated 17.04.2018. The National Commission set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, keeping all contentions open.

Judgment Excerpts

AE No. 73 of 2024 has been filed by the complainant / decree holder, Mr.Kishore Bhardwaj, challenging the common order dated 11.09.2024 of the State Commission in EA No. 58 of 2020 in CC No. 394 of 2016, which was filed under section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similarly, AE No. 74 of 2024 has been filed challenging the same common order dated 11.09.2024 in EA No. 81 of 2020 in CC No. 394 of 2016 which was filed under section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said CC No. 394 of 2016 filed by the complainant / decree holder Kishore Bhardwaj was decided vide State Commission’s order dated 17.04.2018 in which following directions were issued : ...

Procedural History

Consumer Complaint No. 394 of 2016 was filed by Kishore Bhardwaj before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, which was decided on 17.04.2018 directing the opposite parties to deliver possession or refund with interest. The complainant filed execution applications EA No. 58 of 2020 under Section 27 and EA No. 81 of 2020 under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission passed a common order on 11.09.2024 in these execution applications. The complainant appealed to the National Commission in AE No. 73/2024 and AE No. 74/2024, which were allowed on 07.08.2025, setting aside the common order and remanding the matter.

Acts & Sections

  • Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 25, 27
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Tribunals National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Allows Appeal Against State Commission Order in Consumer Execution Proceedings — Compliance of Decree for Possession or Refund with Interest. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the ex...
Related Judgement
High Court Constitutional Validity of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act Upheld in Mall Tax Case. Bombay High Court Dismisses SGS Infratech Limited’s Petition, Affirms the Requirement for Tax Pre-Deposit in Appeals