ORDER : Ruma Pal, J. Leave granted. 2. The respondent complainant had claimed an amount from the respondent on account of an advance stated to have been made by the complainant to the respondent for allotment of a flat. The defence of the respondent (who is now the appellant before us) before all the fora under the Consumer Protection Act was that the amount advanced by the complainant had been deposited with the cooperative housing society of which the appellant was only a promoter and that the Society was liable to refund the amount. The District Forum, however, did not decide the issue and directed the appellant to pay the amount to the complainant with liberty granted to the appellant to recover the amount paid by him from the Society. The State Commission has confirmed the finding of the District Forum. When the matter came up before the National Commission, the National Commission passed an order dated 13-7-2001 limiting the revisional application to the question whether quantum of the award in question should be payable by the appellant or by the cooperative housing society. Notice was also issued to the Society. When the matter was disposed of by the National Commission, there was no decision on this issue at all. On the other hand, the Commission has only considered the quantum of interest on the awarded amount. In the absence of a finding on the issue formulated by the Commission itself, the decision of the National Commission cannot stand. 3. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the National Commission is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the National Commission for a decision of the issue as framed by its order dated 13-7-2001. 4. No costs.