Anil K. Jain & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority
- SCC(2016) 14 SCC 745
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot transfer a consumer complaint to the District Forum merely on the ground that the amount of compensation claimed is high or appears disproportionate; the Commission must decide the complaint on its merits after hearing the parties and considering the evidence, regardless of the quantum claimed. A higher consumer forum's approval of a lower forum's order transferring a matter on such grounds without substantive adjudication constitutes serious legal error and cannot cure the original illegality. Human
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free