N.V. Ramana, J. - (1.) The reference before us arises out of the order dated 13.07.2018, passed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court, wherein they expressed doubt as to the correctness of the judgment rendered in the case of HUDA vs. Sunita, 2005 2 SCC 479. This Court therein held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as NCDRC) had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality behind the demand of composition fee and extension fee made by HUDA, as the same being statutory obligation, does not qualify as deficiency in service .
(2.) It is pertinent herein to note the opinion expressed by the two-Judge Bench regarding the decision in the case of Sunita (supra) while passing the referral order: We are, prima facie, of the view that this six-paragraph order, which does not, prima facie, contain any reason for the conclusion reached, requires a relook in view of the fact that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficent legislation
(3.) The counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order in the case of Sunita (supra) is well reasoned, as it validly holds that the NCDRC lacks jurisdiction to decide the legitimacy behind the demand of composition fee and extension fee . Relying on the aforesaid holding, the counsel further stated that statutory dues cannot be claimed as deficiency in services . Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that although the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is beneficial in nature, demanding a liberal construction, the same cannot be used to extend the ambit of the Act by bringing in remedies or benefits which were not intended by the legislature.;