A recent ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has overturned a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order, highlighting the critical importance of transparency and procedural fairness in consumer disputes. The case centered around a flat size discrepancy and the alleged concealment of material facts by the complainant.

In 2009, a complainant booked a flat with the appellant/opposite party (OP), paying the full consideration for a property measuring 118.95 square meters (1280 square feet). After receiving possession, the complainant alleged a significant shortfall in the actual area and filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation. The State Commission partly allowed the complaint, directing the OP to pay Rs. 11,02,794/- with interest and execute a correction deed.

The OP appealed the State Commission's order, arguing that the complainant had concealed material facts, including the property's commercial use and subsequent resale. They also asserted that the State Commission failed to consider the agreement terms, which limited claims and outlined a one-year defect notification period.

A significant procedural irregularity was the State Commission's failure to notify the OP of the case transfer from Mumbai to Pune, depriving them of the opportunity to be heard. The OP also claimed that their written submissions were not considered.

The NCDRC's investigation revealed that the complainant had assigned the flat to third parties twice: once before filing the complaint and again during its pendency. Notably, both assignment deeds explicitly stated the flat's area as 1280 square feet, contradicting the complainant's claim of a reduced area.

The NCDRC found that the complainant's failure to disclose these assignments and the stated area in the deeds constituted a suppression of material facts. This concealment prevented the State Commission from considering crucial evidence that challenged the complainant's claims.

The NCDRC set aside the State Commission's order, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the need to address all relevant evidence. The NCDRC noted the absence of cross-examination records and arguments on behalf of the OP in the State Commission's order.

The NCDRC highlighted the complainant's voluntary assignment of the property to third parties, acknowledging the area as specified in the agreement, which contradicted his claims. The NCDRC also acknowledged that the OP had filed a written statement, although it was not taken on record due to being filed beyond the statutory period.

The NCDRC granted the complainant the liberty to approach appropriate fora for relief, allowing them to seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the time spent in the litigation.

This ruling underscores the necessity for transparency and procedural fairness in consumer disputes. It highlights the potential consequences of concealing material facts and the importance of adhering to procedural norms. The NCDRC's decision serves as a reminder to consumer commissions to thoroughly examine all evidence and ensure that all parties are afforded a fair hearing. This case also reminds consumers to be truthful in their claims and to present all relevant details.