M/s. Rajendra Properties & Industries           - Petitioner 
Vs. 
Shri R.S.Nandwani & Anr.                            - Respondents

Before : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Suhas C.Sen, President, Dr.(Mrs.) R.Thamarajakshi, Member, Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.L.Choudhry, Member

C.L.CHAUDHRY, J. MEMBER

By this order, we propose to dispose of both the Revision Petition Nos. 1022/96 and 1023/96 as identical questions of fact and law are involved in these two petitions. The facts of the case are narrated from R.P.No. 1023/96. 

Mr. M.L.Behl, Respondent in this Revision Petition filed a complaint against the Revision Petitioner seeking directions to the Petitioner to refund an amount of Rs. 95,845/- with interest @18% and compensation for the loss caused to him towards increase in the cost of construction. The Petitioner gave an advertisement in the Hindustan Times dated 27th February, 1986 that booking for shops and offices in Janakpuri C-1, Shopping/Offices complex was available and the intending purchaser could book the same. The Complainant entered into an agreement with the Petitioner on 24th March, 1986 for purchase of Space No. RS-1106, in the Rajendra Suehari Bhavan to be constructed on Plot No.6, C-1, Janakpuri, Local Community Centre. The complainant paid the entire amount of Rs. 95,845/- in instalments but the possession of the allotted shop was not given to him and in fact the work at the site had been abandoned by the petitioner. In these premises, the respondent approached the State Commission by way of a complaint praying therein that the Petitioner may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 95,845/- with interest @ 18% to the complainant and also compensation for the increase in cost of construction.

The complaint was contested on behalf of the Petitioner on various pleas. After considering the relevant contentions of the parties, the State Commission by its order dated 28-8-1992 directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,81,693/- to the complainant with interest @ 18% w.e.f. 15th November, 1991 till the date of payment within three months from the date of the order. The operative portion of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:

"In this situation, we are of the view that the respondent is liable to refund the amount paid to them by the complainant. He is further entitled to interest on the said amount by way of damages @ 18% p.a. The total amount of interest comes to Rs. 85,888/-. The complainant has been compensated as he has been given interest @ 18% p.a. We therefore, do not grant any damages on account of escalation in the cost of construction.

The facts in case No. C-282/91 are similar and no additional argument has been advanced therein. The amount deposited in that case is Rs. 95,805/- as detailed in Annexure-II to the Judgement. The complainant for similar reasons is entitled to Rs. 85,888/- as interest in the said case. Consequently, we accept both the complaints with costs and direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 1,81,693/- to the complainant in Complaint No. C-281/91 with interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. 15th November, 1991 till the date of payment within three months from today and Rs. 1,83,761/- in Complaint No. 282/91 with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15-11-91 till the date of payment within three months. Costs Rs. 1,000/- in each case. In awarding costs we have taken into consideration the fact, that during the trial we awarded the complainant cost of Rs. 1,000/- vide our order dated 28-5-92."

The petitioner challenged the order of the State Commission by way of an appeal before this commission. Vide order dated 29th April, 1994, the appeal was disposed of by this Commission with the following order:

"We have heard fully the submissions put forward by Mr. Ajit Kumar Pande, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in these two cases. He reiterated before us the preliminary objections that had been raised by his client before the State Commission. We find no force at all in these contentions and we fully agree with the reasons stated by the State Commission for rejecting all those preliminary objections. The next point put forward is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded to the Respondents. Admittedly, there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner herein in as much as despite the passing of several years they have failed to provide the commercial space for which the Respondents had made the booking and fully paid the value thereof. The direction issued by the State Commission that the appellant should refund the amount deposited by the complainant towards the cost of commercial space with interest at 18% p.a. was fully warranted and we find no reason whatever to interfere with the orders so passed by the State Commission. The appeals are accordingly to fail and are dismissed with costs which we fix at a consolidated figure of Rs. 3,500/-." As the Petitioner failed to pay the amount as directed by the State Commission, the complainant moved an application Under Section 27 of the Act before the State Commission for enforcement of the order. The Petitioner filed objections to the effect that the order of the State Commission was not correct as the State Commission committed a legal error by awarding interest upon interest which was not permissible under the law. The State Commission did not find merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner and held that in their view the operative part of the order of the Commission dated 28th August, 1992 was clear enough and the amount worked out on 15th November, 1991 was quantified. In the case of Mr. R.S.Nandwani, the amount was quantified as Rs. 1,83,693/- and in the case of Mr. M.L.Behl, it was Rs. 1,81,693/-. It was these amounts which carried interest @ 18%. The amount was, therefore, required to calculate in those terms.

The Petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission by filing the Revision Petitions.  Mr. Harish Malhotra, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that the State Commission committed a legal error in awarding interest on interest to the complainant in its order dated 28th August, 1992. The complainant had claimed a refund of amount of Rs. 95,845/- with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till payment whereas the State Commission had calculated interest @ 18% on Rs. 95,845/- from the date of deposit till the date of filing of the complaint which came to be Rs. 1,83,693/- and on that amount the interest was awarded @ 18% from the date of deposit till date of payment. The order of the State Commission dated 28th August, 1992 was not legally correct and could not be enforced. The petitioner was not liable to pay interest upon interest as directed by the State Commission. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the respondent that such type of objection was not available to the Petitioner in execution proceedings and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner was not sustainable in law. 

We have considered the relevant contentions of the parties. We are afraid we cannot accept the contention raised by Mr. Malhotra. The order passed by the State Commission dated 28th August, 1992 was upheld in appeal by this Commission's order dated 29th April, 1994. The order of the State Commission acquired and attained finality. The proceedings Under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are in the nature of execution proceedings of the basic order. 

It is settled law that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The jurisdiction of the Court executing a decree must be determined with reference to and is circumscribed by the directions contained in the decree. It has no power to go behind it or question its legality or correctness. The executing Court must execute the decree as it stands and according to its terms. It is not permissible under law to go behind the basic order in the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act. The basic order can not be amended, modified or varied in the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act. This Commission in the case of Ashish Kumar Biswas versus D.D.A and Ors. in Revision Petition No. 752 of 1995 decided on 30th May, 1993 took the same view.

In view of this, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. As a result, we find no merit in the Revision Petitions and these are dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. By this order both the Revision Petitions, i.e., R.P.No. 1022/96 and R.P.No. 1023/96, stand dismissed.