1. During the course of hearing, we have been HUDA v. Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479, a judgment of two learned judges of this Court in which it has been held that the National Commission had no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the demand of “composition fee” and “extension fee” as they do not fall within the definition of “deficiency in service”.
2. 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 beneficient legislation.
3. The papers be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench.