HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.versusSATISH HANS

                        [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
                                                                   t
          [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                       GANGULY, JJ.]
        Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 12 - Complaint under
c - 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
             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
                                                                        D
          Ill (2006) CPJ 136(1C)    referred to        Para 3
          CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2903
     of 2009
          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.

 J        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
      interest as demanded by the appellant authority. The District•
    0
      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
      National Commission did not find any substance in the revision
    E 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.
            3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
    F 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
    G Surinder Mohan v. Municipal Corporation and Anr. [Ill (2006)
      CPJ 136(1C)]
             4. It is the stand of the appellant that the National
        Commission has not considered this aspect even though
        specific plea was raised.
    H
           HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY               181
         AND ANR. V. SATISH HANS [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

J        5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.     A
                       '                        .
         6. 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 Mohan (supra).
        7. The matter is remitted to the National Commission. The   B
    appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

r8.8.B.                                          Appeal allowed.