Delhi High Court
Ansal Housing Limited vs Vikas Jain & Anr on 31 July, 2025
$~91
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 31st July, 2025
+ CM(M) 1340/2025 & CM APPL. 44135/2025 & CM APPL.
44136/2025 & CM APPL. 44137/2025
ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan and Mr. Kumar
Dheeraj, Advocates
versus
VIKAS JAIN & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhinav Garg and Mr. Mihir
Gujjewar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The point raised in the present petition is very short and was captured in
the last order dated 24.07.2025 which reads as under: -
"1. The grievance of the petitioner is, merely, to the effect that, even if, the
review application was to be considered and, eventually, allowed by the
learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short
NCDRC ), it should have, at least, issued notice before disposing of such
review application.
2. It is submitted that it becomes all the more important because the
eventual outcome is to their detriment. In this regard, they strongly rely
upon BPS infrastructure Limited vs. Ashwanidewan: 2025 SCC Online Del
3450.
3. None appears on behalf of respondent despite advance notice.
4. Issue notice through all permissible modes including dasti. Notice be also
issued through counsel, returnable on 31.07.2025.
5. Be shown in supplementary list."
2. Pursuant to the notice, Mr. Abhinav Garg, learned counsel for
respondent/ complainant has put in appearance and, in all fairness, submits
that his application MA/49/2025 whereby he was seeking modification of
order dated 07.01.2025 was disposed without issuing any notice to the
opposite party i.e. Ansal Housing Limited.
3. As per the order dated 07.01.2025, there was following directions to the
opposite party:-
"The Opposite Party is directed to refund the complainant Rs. 96,46,580/-
along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date
of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this order. In
the event of delay beyond two months, the interest payable for the entire
period shall be @ 12% per annum."
4. Learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(NCDRC), while taking up the aforesaid application and without issuing any
notice to opposite party, has allowed the application while directing that the
aforesaid order be read as under: -
"The Opposite Party is directed to refund the complainant Rs.96,46,580/-
along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of the
deposit till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date
of this order dated 25.02.2025. In the event of delay beyond two months,
the interest payable for the entire period shall be @ 12% per annum."
5. Learned NCDRC, while allowing the application, observed that it was
mere inadvertent typographical error.
6. Fact remains that since the modified order is, evidently, to the
detriment of the opposite party as the period of component of interest stands
substantially increased, ideally speaking, before passing any such order,
notice should have been given so as to have their response.
7. Mr. Abhinav Garg, learned counsel for respondent submits that he
would have no objection if the present petition is disposed of with request to
learned NCDRC to consider the aforesaid application afresh.
8. He, however, submits that complainant has already filed an Execution
Petition which has been given number as SC/7/EA/110/2024 and the next
date before the learned State Commission, where the aforesaid Execution
Petition is listed is of 19.09.2025.
9. During course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner herein i.e.
judgment-debtor undertakes that they would appear in the aforesaid
Execution Petition and would file appropriate response, if required.
10. Mr. Garg undertakes to supply copy of Execution Petition
well-in-advance through electronic mail.
11. Let it be done.
12. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, the present petition is
disposed of with request to learned NCDRC to consider the aforesaid
application MA/49/2025 filed by appellant/applicant Mr. Vikas Jain afresh
and for the aforesaid purpose, the parties are directed to appear before learned
NCDRC on 20.08.2025.
13. The opposite party would be at liberty to file reply, if any, to the
aforesaid application with advance copy to complainant/applicant.
14. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
15. All the pending applications are also disposed in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JULY 31, 2025/dr/shs
