IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.761 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.15179 of 2007)

Anil K. Jain and Anr.       ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Delhi Development Authority       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

In  spite  of  service  of  notice,  nobody  has  appeared  on  behalf  of  the

respondent to contest the prayer made in this appeal.

The  appellants  filed  a  complaint  before  the  State  Consumer  Disputes

Redressal Commission, New Delhi, [for short, ‘the State Commission’], claiming total

compensation to the tune of Rupees thirty five lakhs and four thousand.  The State

Commission, instead of deciding the complaint on merits, transferred the same to the

District  Forum, as  in its  opinion,  the amount of  compensation was astronomically

high.  That order has been confirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission [for short, ‘the National Commission’].  Hence, this appeal by special

leave.  

In our view, the State Commission was duty bound to consider the merits

of the claim made by the appellants and decide the same after giving opportunity of

adducing evidence

....2/-

- 2 -

to  the  parties  and  hearing  them.  It  was  not  at  all  justified  in  transferring  the

complaint  to  the  District  Forum  on  an  assumed  ground  that  the  amount  of

compensation  claimed  was  astronomically  high.   The  National  Commission  also

committed serious error by approving the legally unsustainable order passed by the

State Commission.   

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the

matter is remitted to the State Commission to decide the complaint afresh after giving

opportunity of hearing to the parties.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, February 06, 2009.