2009 (4) TMI 463 - SC - Companies Law

As 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 - As there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent it would be appropriate for the National Commission to re-consider the matter

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing petition regarding complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for rectifying statement of accounts and interest calculation.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to National Commission's Order:
The appeal in this case challenged the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) dismissing the petition. The complaint was filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, regarding the purchase of a shop in an auction and subsequent issues with payments and area development. The District Forum directed the recalculation of the amount with simple interest, which was upheld by the State Commission and the National Commission. The National Commission held that simple interest was to be charged, not compound interest, and dismissed the revision petition.

2. Argument for Appeal:
The appellant authority argued that the National Commission failed to consider a crucial aspect raised by them. They contended that the National Commission had previously held that once an allottee avails a remedy from the appellant authority, they cannot approach a forum or commission under the Act. Reference was made to a previous order of the National Commission in Surinder Mohan v. Municipal Corporation and another (2006) III CPJ 136 (NCDRC).

3. Remittance to National Commission:
As there was no representation from the respondent, the Court found it appropriate for the National Commission to reconsider the matter in light of the decision in Surinder Mohan case. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the National Commission for further consideration. The appeal was allowed on this ground, with no costs imposed on either party.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court remitted the case back to the National Commission for reconsideration in light of the appellant's argument regarding the previous decision in Surinder Mohan case. The Court highlighted the importance of considering all relevant aspects before making a decision, ensuring a fair and just resolution in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.