# HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR v. SATISH HANS

- **Citation:** [2009] 7 S.C.R. 178
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-04-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2903 of 2009
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, ASOK KUMAR t GANGULY
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/haryana-urban-development-authority-and-anr-v-satish-hans-25900
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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 appellantauthority. 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

## Text

[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 appellantauthority. 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
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)]
H
4. It is the stand of the appellant that the National
Commission has not considered this aspect even though
specific plea was raised.
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.