A.P. Sahi, President

The complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant being CC/137/2019 was finally allowed on 01.10.2021 by the SCDRC, Rajasthan, whereby the appellant was directed to refund the amount paid by the complainants together with interest against the booking of a premises by the complainant as directed therein and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as costs.

2. The appellant aggrieved by the said order has preferred FA/946/2021 in which notices were issued on 09.03.2022, but no interim orders were granted.

3. The complainant appears to have filed an execution before the State Commission being MA/8/2023, where orders were passed and now finally an order of attachment of the bank account of the appellant has been passed on 01.05.2026, attaching a sum of Rs.50,23,185/- of the escrow account as referred to therein.

4. An execution appeal has been preferred against the said order impugned in Diary No. 17511/2026, the same could not be registered as an execution appeal, as the State Commission has been registering execution applications as miscellaneous applications, which is causing impediment in the registration of the proceedings as an appeal execution before this Commission on the e-jagriti portal. We however direct that Diary No. 17511/2026 shall stand registered as an appeal execution.

5. When the diary number appeal came up before us on 03.08.2026, we directed that since there is already a regular appeal pending against the order of the State Commission, the same should be placed before us as no interim orders had been passed. We therefore called upon the learned counsel for the appellant to address us on both the matters to be heard today.

6. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Kakar, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also handed over an application regarding the calculation disputing the same and it has been urged that the same does not reflect the correct adjustments in the order of attachment. The contents of the said application and the calculation sheets are extracted herein under:







7. We have also simultaneously proceeded to hear the learned counsel finally on the regular appeal itself. According to the appellant they failed to abide by the timeline of handing over the property to the respondent/ complainant for reasons beyond their control that but in fact has indicated the delay for which contentions have been raised that they were for bonafide considerations. On the other hand the appellant has also alleged that the complainant had not made any timely payments and was a defaulter and hence the complaint ought to have been dismissed.

8. However, while advancing these pleas, what is also evident that for the delay that was admittedly caused by the appellants, have also been partially compensated to the respondent/ complainant which the appellants have described a generous gesture towards the complainants. A sum of Rs.3,88,520/- was therefore paid on account of such delays.

9. The fact remains that the project commenced in the year 2014 and the completion period was three years from the date of excavation with a grace period of six months thereafter. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.26,48,927/- against the consideration of the premises, the total estimated price whereof was Rs.76,26,200/-. An agreement was executed on 13.02.2015. No progress was made and the appellants took a plea that delays were caused due to non-availability of the no objection certificate from the Airport Authority of India, whereafter the RERA Act came into force which required registration, that also consumed time and the RERA authorities have also granted an extension up to 2021 and even thereafter due to COVID. The plea of constructions being impeded due to air pollution and non-availability of Red Sand (Bazri) also led to the delays. According to the appellants these delays were intimated to all the buyers including the complainants and thereafter compensation was also paid as referred to above. In the given circumstances, in the absence of any delay on the part of the appellant, the complaint could not have been allowed on the basis of the findings recorded in the impugned order.

10. A perusal of the impugned would also indicate that the construction was not even complete even after the filing of the complaint and the constructions were still on as late as in December, 2019. Taking into account the entire delay, the State Commission allowed the complaint and direct refund after adjusting the compensation paid.

11. We find that the nature of the reasons given for the delay are not attributable in any way to the complainant and rather it is the own act or omissions of the appellants or its failure to perform that led to the delays as is already established on record. We therefore do not find any error in the conclusions drawn by the State Commission directing the refund of the amount.

12. As noted above the appeal remained pending and there was no interim order passed by this Commission. The execution was filed in the year 2023 and the attachment order has been passed very recently. The matter therefore now at this stage requires a final disposal and there is no reason for us to keep the matter pending.

13. Having heard the learned counsel and having considered the submissions raised as already indicated above, there is no reason to accept any of the grounds raised in the appeal to question the correctness of the order of the State Commission. The appeal therefore cannot succeed. The complainant had established the deficiency on the part of the appellant which also stands admitted on the facts disclosed by the appellant itself that the premises had not been offered, nor had it been completed within the time prescribed. The complainants cannot be compelled to wait endlessly for any delivery of premises and therefore no relief can be granted to the appellant. Accordingly, FA/946/2021 is dismissed.

14. In the light of the above there is no occasion for us to entertain the appeal execution against the order of attachment. The issue of calculation according to the decree has to be dealt with by the State Commission in the execution matter, where the attachment orders have been passed. There is therefore no occasion for us to entertain this appeal execution, as we do not find any error in the impugned order dated 01.05.2026 passed in MA/8/2023. The same is also accordingly dismissed. Both matters stand dismissed.