2009 INSC 0246
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                 Anil K. Jain

                                                      Vs.

                                      Delhi Development Authority

                                            C.A.No.761 of 2009

                                  (B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi JJ.)

                                                  06.02.2009

                                                   ORDER

Leave granted.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. In spite of service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent to contest
the prayer made in this appeal.

3. 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.

4. 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 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.

5. 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.

1  SpotLaw