Case Note & Summary
The present appeals arise out of two execution applications filed by the complainants, Shivani Aggarwal and Sunita Jain, against the builder, Pranav Ansal, for non-compliance of a consent order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana. The consent order was passed in Consumer Complaints CC/73/2017 and CC/71/2017, wherein the builder agreed to deliver possession of the flats and pay compensation to the complainants. The builder failed to comply with the terms, leading to the filing of execution applications EA No. 3 of 2024 and EA No. 2 of 2024. The State Commission dismissed the execution applications on 03.12.2024, holding that the consent order had been complied with. Aggrieved, the complainants filed appeals before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The National Commission examined the records and found that the builder had not fully complied with the consent order, as possession was not delivered and compensation was not paid as per the agreed terms. The National Commission set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the State Commission for fresh consideration on merits, directing the State Commission to examine the compliance afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Execution of Consent Order - Non-Compliance - The complainants sought execution of a consent order dated 27.02.2020 whereby the builder agreed to deliver possession and pay compensation. The State Commission dismissed the execution applications holding that the order had been complied with. The National Commission set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, holding that the builder had not fully complied with the terms of the consent order. (Paras 1-10) B) Consumer Law - Limitation for Execution - The execution applications were filed within the period of limitation as per the Limitation Act, 1963, and the State Commission erred in dismissing them on the ground of delay. (Paras 11-15) C) Consumer Law - Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora - The Consumer Fora have the jurisdiction to execute their own orders, including consent orders, and the State Commission ought to have examined the compliance on merits. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Commission was justified in dismissing the execution applications filed by the complainants on the ground that the consent order had been complied with, and whether the appeals against such dismissal are maintainable.
Final Decision
The National Commission allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders dated 03.12.2024, and remanded the matters to the State Commission for fresh consideration on merits.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 2019
- Execution of consent orders
- Non-compliance of settlement terms
- Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora in execution
- Limitation for execution applications
