ORDER 1. The appeal arises from a decision dated 5 November 2015 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC"). 2. On 5 November 2015, the NCDRC passed the following order:- "Learned counsel for the parties present. Last time, we passed the following order: It is also made clear that the moment, the entire amount is paid by the complainants, the OP will hand over the possession, within 15 days from the receipt of the amount. Otherwise, the Commission will take a serious view of that. According to the learned counsel for the complainants, the complainants paid the entire amount on 14.12.2014. The opposite party is not following the order of this Commission. The opposite party is trying to delay the case. Complainants evidence has not been filed. Learned counsel for the opposite party prays for time till 20.2.2015. Time is granted subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- to each of the complainants. This is the last opportunity that if the flat is not given by 20.2.2015, the Commission will impose heavy costs upon the opposite party. That will be on the basis of per day. If the possession is not given upto 20.2.2015, costs of Rs.5,000/- per day to each of the complainant be paid. The matter is adjourned to 23.2.2015." 3. The NCDRC found that the counsel for the complainants had made a statement that the entire amount stood paid on 14 December 2014, whereas in actuality it was paid on 19 January 2015. 4. In this regard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to the following averments which are contained in the synopsis to the present appeal:- "The National Commission has also wrongly recorded that the Appellants had made a wrong statement, in taking reference of the order dated 23.01.2015, that the entire amount stood paid on 14.12.2014 though it was actually paid on 19.01.2015, despite the fact that the Appellants had tendered the proof of payment during the course of hearing on 23.01.2015 which clearly indicated that the last instalment of 5% which as per the term of the agreement was to be paid at the time of possession, had been made in December 2014-January 2015, pursuant to the order of the Hon ble Commission directing the Respondent to hand over possession. However, the date of payment had been wrongly recorded in the order dated 23.01.2015. However, the date of payment had been wrongly recorded in the order dated 23.01.2015. On receipt of the order dated 23.01.2015, the Appellants noticing the error with regard to date of payment in the order, had filed an Application bearing I.A. No.793 of 2015 for appropriate orders/directions for rectification of certain typographical errors inter alia with regard to the date of payment being recorded in the order dated 23.01.2015. The said I.A..793 of 2015 stood allowed by the National Commission vide order dated 06.02.2015....." 5. Hence, it has been submitted that as a matter of fact, the appellants had filed an I.A. before the NCDRC after receipt of the order dated 23 January 2015 and the I.A. was allowed on 6 February 2015. 6. The NCDRC by its impugned order noted the statement of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the developer that payment by one of the purchasers i.e. Manisha Kaushal was made on 24 January 2015 and that the same was the position in regard to another purchaser, Utful Kumar. Based on this statement, the NCDRC formed the view that since the payment was made only in the month of January 2015, the liability to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- per day would arise only thereafter. 7. The appellants have placed on the record additional documents including a review application which was filed before the NCDRC (Review Application No. 284/2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 262/2012). In the review application, the appellants averred that the NCDRC proceeded on an erroneous basis that full payment was made only in 2014 and 2015. According to the appellants, their agreement stipulated either the making of the payments by way of a down payment of 95 per cent within one month of booking or payments linked to construction save and except for 5 per cent which was to be paid at the time of the handing over of the possession. 8. Averments in regard to Manisha Kaushal and Utful Kumar were set out in paragraph 3(i) of the review application. 9. The NCDRC by its Order dated 10.12.2015 declined to interfere with the review application on the ground that it had already decided the matter on 5 November 2015. 10. 8. Averments in regard to Manisha Kaushal and Utful Kumar were set out in paragraph 3(i) of the review application. 9. The NCDRC by its Order dated 10.12.2015 declined to interfere with the review application on the ground that it had already decided the matter on 5 November 2015. 10. In our view, bearing in mind the above factual material and having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the developer, it is but appropriate and proper that the entitlement to additional compensation is considered afresh. 11. The basis on which the impugned order was passed was that an erroneous statement was made on behalf of the complainants and that as a matter of fact, payment was made only in the month of January, 2015. The appellant's explanation deserves to be considered afresh. 12. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the appellants. We have only adverted to the material which has been placed on the record of this Court with a view to provide a basis for the request to the NCDRC to consider the matter afresh. In order to facilitate this exercise, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 5 November 2015 passed by the NCDRC. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be on order as to costs. 13. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. 14. The NCDRC shall, it is needless to say, pass orders afresh after hearing the submissions of both the sides. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.