Failure to provide notice before modifying an order is a violation of procedural fairness, necessitating reconsideration.

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.

Signature Not Verified CM(M) 1340/2025 1 Digitally Signed

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 Signature Not Verified CM(M) 1340/2025 2 Digitally Signed 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 fo