H.U.D.A. & ANR. Vs.
Satish Hans  INSC 852 (29 April 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising out of
SLP (C) No.16886 of 2007 Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.
...Appellants Versus Satish Hans ...Respondent
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (in short `National Commission'). By the impugned order
the Commission dismissed the petition. Challenge in the revision petition
before the National Commission was to the order passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (in short `District Forum') as confirmed by
the order passed by the State Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short
the `State Commission'). The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the `Act'). The grievance was that the
complainant purchased a shop in an auction in 1993 and had deposited a sum of
Rs.82,000/-. He had further deposited a sum of Rs.2,07,000/-. Since further
payment was not forthcoming there was no area development and the appellant
authority resumed the plot. Against this, appeal was filed before the
Administrator of the appellant authority who allowed the appeal and fixed
schedule of payments. An undertaking was filed before the appellate authority
by way of an undertaking that he was ready to pay the balance amount as per
HUDA policy. The complaint was filed by the complainant for rectifying
statement of accounts by working out the amount payable by charging 10% p.a.
rate of interest against the compound rate of interest as demanded by the
appellant authority. The District Forum directed the appellant to re-calculate
the entire amount with simple interest @15% p.a. as mentioned in the allotment
letter and not with compound interest. The appellant filed appeal before the
State Commission which was dismissed.
Commission did not find any substance in the revision petition and held that
the National Commission has taken the view that simple interest was to be
charged and not otherwise. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed.
support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant authority submitted
that the National Commission itself has taken view that where an allottee moves
the appellant authority, or avails remedy available he cannot thereafter move
the forum and/or State or National Commission under the Act. Reliance is placed
on an order passed by the National Commission in Surinder Mohan v. Municipal
Corporation and Anr. [III (2006) CPJ 136(IC)]
is the stand of the appellant that the National Commission has not considered
this aspect even though specific plea was raised.
is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
the circumstances it would be appropriate for the National Commission to
re-consider the matter in the light of what has been decided in the case of
Surinder Mohan (supra).
matter is remitted to the National Commission. The appeal is allowed to the
aforesaid extent. No costs.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)