HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. versus SATISH HANS

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 178 · Decided: 29-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 178 
A 
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
AUTHORITY AND ANR. 
v. 
SATISH HANS 
Civil Appeal No. 2903 of 2009 
B 
APRIL 29, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
t 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
c 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 12 - Complaint under 
- District Forum directed appellant-authority to re-calculate 
amount payable by allottee, with simple interest as mentioned 
in the allotment letter and not with compound rate of interest 
as demanded by appellant-authority - Order confirmed by 
State Commission - Revision petition dismissed by National 
D Commission - Placing reliance on Surinder Mohan case, 
appellant-authority raised plea before Supreme Court that as 
the allottee had earlier moved the appellant authority/availed 
available remedy, he could not thereafter move any forum 
under the Act and that the National Commission did not 
E consider this aspect even though a specific plea was raised -
Held: National Commission directed to re-consider the matter 
in the light of Surinder Mohan case. 
Pursuant to a complaint filed under s.12 of the 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District ConstJm~r 
F Forum directed the appellant-authority to re-calculate the 
entire amount payable by the allottee, with simple interest 
@ 15% p.a. as mentioned in the allotment letter and not 
with compound interest as demanded by the appellant-
authority. The order was confirmed in appeal by the State 
G Commission. Revision petition filed by appellant before 
the National Commission was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, placing reliance on the 
Surinder Mohan case*, it was contended that as the 
H 
178 
J 
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
179 
AND ANR. V. SATISH HANS 
allottee had earlier moved the appellate authority/availed A 
available remedy, he could not thereafter move any forum 
under the Act and that the National Commission did not 
consider this aspect even though a specific plea was 
raised. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the 
8 
National Commission, the Court 
HELD: In 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 c 
Mohan. [Para 6] [181-A] 
* Surinder Mohan v. Municipal Corporation and Am;_ Ill 
(2006) CPJ 136(1C) - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
Ill (2006) CPJ 136(1C) 
referred to 
Para 3 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2903 
of 2009 
D 
From the Judgement and Order dated 07.07.2004 of the 
E 
Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 
in Revision Petition No. 2145 of 2003. 
S.S. Gulati (Dr. for Kailash Chand), for the Appellant(s). 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short G 
'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 1 Panchkula (in short 
'District Forum') as confirmed by the order passed by the State 
H 
• 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short the 'State t 
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 
B 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 
c 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 
0 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. The 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.