National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dismisses Appeal on Execution in Consumer Dispute Over Delayed Possession of Real Estate Unit. State Commission's Order Dismissing Execution Application Upheld as No Grounds for Interference Made Out.

Tribunals: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
  • 118
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal on execution filed by Shellender Singh under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in Execution Application No. 112 of 2016. The background of the dispute is that the appellant was the decree holder in a consumer complaint (CC/311/2015) where the State Commission had partly allowed the complaint on 10.06.2016, directing the opposite party (M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. and its officials) to hand over physical possession of a unit, execute a sale deed, and pay penalties for delay. The appellant filed an execution application to enforce this order. The State Commission, vide order dated 30.06.2023, dismissed the execution application. The appellant then filed a Review Application No. 5 of 2023 under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which was disposed of on 12.12.2023 on the ground that the State Commission lacked power to review its own order under the 1986 Act. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal before the National Commission. The National Commission considered the appeal along with applications for condonation of delay (IA/563/2024 and IA/11661/2024). The appellant appeared in person, while the respondents were represented by counsel. The National Commission, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The court did not elaborate on the specific reasons for dismissal but concluded that the appeal lacked substance. The judgment was pronounced on 09.05.2025 by a bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member, and Hon'ble AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member.

Headnote

A) Consumer Law - Execution of Orders - Section 27-A Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Appeal against dismissal of execution application - Appellant sought execution of order dated 10.06.2016 directing possession and penalty - State Commission dismissed execution application on 30.06.2023 - Appellant filed review under Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which was dismissed as not maintainable under 1986 Act - National Commission dismissed appeal finding no merit - Held that the appeal lacked substance and was dismissed (Paras 1-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the State Commission in Execution Application No. 112 of 2016 dismissing the execution application was liable to be set aside.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The National Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no merit. The order dated 30.06.2023 of the State Commission was upheld.

Law Points

  • Consumer Protection Act
  • 1986
  • Section 27-A
  • Execution of orders
  • Review power under Consumer Protection Act
  • 2019 Section 50
  • Condonation of delay
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (NCDRC) (01) 32

Appeal Execution No. 3 of 2024

2025-05-09

Hon'ble Mr. Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member, Hon'ble AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member

Mr. Shellender Singh in Person (Appellant), Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate (Respondents)

Shellender Singh

Sh. Rohtas Goel, Chairman & Managing Director, M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Manoj Suri, Sr. VP (Sales & Marketing), M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal on execution under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against dismissal of execution application.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the order dated 30.06.2023 dismissing the execution application and to enforce the original order dated 10.06.2016.

Filing Reason

Appellant was aggrieved by the dismissal of his execution application by the State Commission.

Previous Decisions

State Commission dismissed Execution Application No. 112 of 2016 on 30.06.2023; Review Application No. 5 of 2023 was dismissed on 12.12.2023 as not maintainable.

Issues

Whether the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the State Commission in Execution Application No. 112 of 2016 was liable to be set aside.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued in person for setting aside the order. Respondents opposed the appeal through counsel.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. No specific legal principle was elaborated.

Judgment Excerpts

This Appeal on Execution has been filed under section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned State Commission in Execution Application No. 112 of 2016. The Appellant filed Review Application No. 5 of 2023 under section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the aforesaid order dated 30.06.2023 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2023 on the ground of maintainability as the State Commission concluded that it does not have power to review its own order under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Procedural History

Original consumer complaint CC/311/2015 was partly allowed on 10.06.2016. Execution Application EA/112/2016 was filed by appellant. State Commission dismissed EA on 30.06.2023. Review Application No. 5 of 2023 was dismissed on 12.12.2023. Present appeal filed on 21.04.2025 (reserved) and pronounced on 09.05.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 27-A
  • Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Section 50
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Tribunals National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Vatika India Next Project - Consumer Protection Act Applies to Plot Allotment Despite Arbitration Clause - Deficiency in Service Established for Delayed Possession
Related Judgement
Tribunals National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dismisses Appeal on Execution in Consumer Dispute Over Delayed Possession of Real Estate Unit. State Commission's Order Dismissing Execution Application Upheld as No Grounds for Interference Made Out.