K.S.CHAUDHARI, J. - (1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, 'the State Commission') in Execution Application No. 4/2008 in Consumer Complaint No. 13/2002 Kailash Kaur Vs. Chief Administrator, PUDA by which, Execution application was dismissed.
(2.)BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/appellant purchased Plot No. 386, Sector 71, SAS Nagar (Mohali) measuring 500 sq. yards in open auction on 27.3.2000 from OP / respondent for a sum of Rs.20,21,000/ -. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission and learned State Commission vide order dated 28.7.2003 allowed complaint and directed OP as under:
"In these circumstances, we direct the opposite party to remove the deficiency in service by providing basic amenities as mentioned in the complaint to the complainant and to re -allocate the three years' period of time of construction from the date the basic amenities are provided and the area is developed properly; and to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of Rs.21,77,100/ - from 18.6.2001 the date of final deposit of the full price of the plot till the basic amenities are provided to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/ - as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment etc. suffered by the complainant and also due to the escalation in cost of construction of building material etc. Opposite party shall also pay the costs of the litigation to the complainant, which are quantified as Rs.2,000/ -. This complaint is, thus, allowed."
In appeal filed by OP, this Commission vide order dated 26.11.2007 allowed appeal partly as under:
" We feel that in terms of the judgment in GDA vs. Balbir Singh, 2004 5 SCC 65 and the observations, the complainant is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the various amounts deposited from the dates of respective deposits and not from 18th June, 2001 till the date of delivery of possession."
SLP filed by OP was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.11.2007, but before that complainant filed Execution application before State Commission on 9.4.2008 and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed Execution application as decree stood complied with against which, this appeal has been filed.
(3.)HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that only symbolic possession of plot was given on 7.6.2001, but actual possession was given on 30.9.2009 and in such circumstances, appellant was entitled to interest upto 30.9.2009, but learned State Commission committed error in holding that possession was given on 7.6.2001 and dismissing Execution application, hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.