REPORTABLE

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

J U D G M E N T

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  ‘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.  

The National Commission did not find any substance in the revision petition  

and  held  that  the  National  Commission  has  taken  the  view  that  simple  

2

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 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)]

4. It is the stand of the appellant that the National Commission has not  

considered this aspect even though specific plea was raised.  

5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

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).    

3

7. The matter  is remitted to the National Commission.   The appeal is  

allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.   

 ......................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)  

......................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 29, 2009

4