Plot Possession Battle Heads Back to State Commission: Decree Holders Challenge Omaxe Ltd.'s Delay.


19 November 2024 Consumer Complaints >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights   |   Property Law >> Personal Law  

A recent appeal execution filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) highlights a protracted legal battle between Naresh Bansal and Gagan Deep Goel (decree holders) and Omaxe Ltd. (judgment debtor) concerning the possession of a plot in Sonipat, Haryana. The case revolves around the execution of an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (State Commission), directing Omaxe Ltd. to hand over possession of the plot to the decree holders.

The genesis of the dispute lies in a consumer complaint filed by Bansal and Goel with the State Commission. In its order dated April 11, 2023, the State Commission ruled in favor of the complainants, directing Omaxe Ltd. to deliver possession of plot no. 1886-D, Omaxe City, Sonipat, within two months, contingent upon the decree holders depositing a sum of Rs. 8,47,641/-. The order also awarded the complainants Rs. 1,50,000/- towards litigation costs.


 

 

Following the State Commission's order, the decree holders filed an execution petition. It is undisputed that the decree holders complied with the order by depositing the stipulated amount with Omaxe Ltd. However, the subsequent proceedings took a turn when, despite the NCDRC not staying the possession order in Omaxe Ltd.'s appeal against the State Commission's decision, the State Commission did not issue a direction for handing over possession.

Aggrieved by this, the decree holders approached the NCDRC seeking execution of the State Commission's order dated April 11, 2023, specifically requesting a direction for Omaxe Ltd. to hand over possession of the plot.

The decree holders argued before the NCDRC that they had booked the plot in 2004 and Omaxe Ltd. had failed to deliver possession within the agreed timeframe. They emphasized their compliance with the State Commission's order by depositing the required amount. They also questioned why Omaxe Ltd. accepted the payment if they intended to appeal the order. Notably, the State Commission, in a subsequent hearing, directed Omaxe Ltd. to refund the deposited amount along with additional costs, which Omaxe Ltd. complied with. The decree holders argued that the NCDRC's earlier order not staying the possession aspect indicated the commission's inclination towards granting them possession.

Omaxe Ltd., represented by their counsel, countered these arguments. They contended that the delay in possession was due to the decree holders' default in adhering to the payment schedule. They further argued that the company had forfeited the earnest money and cancelled the allotment in 2012 due to these payment defaults. Omaxe Ltd. also raised jurisdictional concerns, arguing that the State Commission in Delhi lacked the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on a property situated in Haryana. Additionally, they argued that the dispute was contractual and required a full civil trial, not a summary proceeding under consumer law. Omaxe Ltd. stated that they never consented to receiving the amount from the decree holders and that the subsequent refund of the amount, as directed by the State Commission, effectively extinguished the decree holders' claim to possession.

The NCDRC, after considering the arguments and reviewing the orders of the State Commission, concluded that it could not step into the shoes of the executing court to enforce the State Commission's order. The NCDRC stated that the State Commission was the appropriate forum to proceed with the execution as per the law. Consequently, the NCDRC disposed of the appeal execution, leaving the matter for further proceedings before the State Commission.

This case underscores the complexities involved in executing consumer court orders, particularly when appeals are pending. The outcome of the further proceedings before the State Commission will be crucial in determining whether the decree holders will finally gain possession of the plot they booked years ago.


  CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019