JUDGMENT :

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

Preliminary and brief outline

Leave granted.

2. In these appeals by special leave, the appellants have essentially questioned a part of the common judgment and order dated 31.03.2022, as passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi¹[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the National Commission’.] in Revision Petition Nos. 771 of 2020, 772 of 2020 and 773 of 2020, whereby the National Commission has declined to interfere in the common judgment and order dated 12.03.2020, as passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi²[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the State Commission’.], in Appeal Nos. 121 of 2014, 122 of 2014 and 123 of 2014.

2.1. The present set of appeals has its genesis in the three complaints filed by the complainant-respondent before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi³[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the District Forum’.], bearing Nos. C-252 of 2006, C-283 of 2006 and C-284 of 2006 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the present appellants for having failed to deliver the possession of three flats booked by her, even after expiry of the agreed period and despite the fact that she had admittedly made payment of 60% of the total sale consideration. The District Forum, in its order dated 20.12.2013, dismissed the complaints so filed by the present respondent on various grounds including that she had tried to avail of the services of the builder for commercial purposes by booking three flats and thus, did not fall within the category of “consumer”, as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986⁴[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act of 1986’].

2.2. In the said judgment and order dated 12.03.2020, the State Commission, however, disapproved the order so passed by the District Forum as regards the maintainability of complaints and then, particularly with reference to the decision in the case of Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga v. K.L. Suneja: (2018) 14 SCC 679⁵[Reference to this case has occurred at multiple places hereafter; where it has been referred to as the case of ‘Dr. Manjeet Kaur Monga’ or the case of ‘Dr. Monga’.], wherein the award of compound interest by Competition Appellate Tribunal⁶[‘COMPAT’, for short.] under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969⁷[Hereinafter also referred to as the ‘MRTP Act’.] was not interfered with by this Court, granted relief to the complainant in the manner that the appellants shall refund the amount deposited by her together with ‘compound interest at the rate of 14% from the date of deposit’. The National Commission rejected all the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant against the order so passed by the State Commission and also found no reason to interfere with th