Home       Top Rated       Submit Article     Advanced Search     FAQ       Contact Us       Lawyers in India       Law Forum     RSS Feeds     

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.

Latest Articles | Articles 2014 | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)
File Caveat in Supreme Court
Contact Ph no: +9650499965

Main Categories
 Accident Law
 Animal Laws
 Arbitration
 Aviation Law
 Bangladesh Law
 Banking and Finance laws
 Case Laws
 Civil Laws
 Company Law
 Constitutional Law
 Consumer laws
 Contracts laws
 Criminal law
 Drug laws
 Dubai laws
 Educational laws
 Employment / Labour laws
 Environmental Law
 family law
 Gay laws and Third Gender
 Human Rights laws
 Immigration laws
 Insurance / Accident Claim
 Intellectual Property
 International Law
 Juvenile Laws
 Law - lawyers & legal Profession
 Legal Aid and Lok Adalat
 Legal outsourcing
 Media laws
 Medico legal
 Miscellaneous
 Real estate laws
 Right To Information
 Tax Laws
 Torts Law
 Woman Issues
 Workplace Equality & Non-Discrimination
 Yet Another Category

More Options
 Most read articles
 Most rated articles

Subscription
Subscribe now and receive free articles and updates instantly.

Name
Email




Published : August 13, 2017 | Author : Rohan Dua
Category : Case Laws | Total Views : 492 | Rating :

  
Rohan Dua
First Year Learner, Symbiosis Law School, Noida, BBA.LL.B
 

Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K. Gupta Air 1994 Sc 787 (AIR 1994 SC 787)

Question of Law:
# Whether Statutory Land Development authorities come under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

# Whether housing activity came within the purview of services defined in the act prior to its amendment in 1993.

Issues:
# The rights and powers of the National Commission to hold statutory authorities accountable for omissions and award exemplary damages.

# Liability of the state in torts: Sovereign and Non-sovereign functions

# Compensation for loss or injury even in cases resulting out of actions authorised by law and carried out without any negligence.

# Compensation not only in terms of value of goods and services but also damages for injustice.

# For acts done in bad faith, absolute liability is on the part of employee.

Rules:
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986: As per the preamble it was enacted to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers' -

It serves a total purpose in empowering the common man to get goods and services as per the quality claimed by the seller/provider. In any deficiency thereof the consumer is entitled to claim compensation by approaching the or state or National commission as the case may be. It protects the common man from ways committed by the seller of goods and provider of services. It allows the consumer to file a complaint for unfair trade practices, restrictive trade practice; for defective goods; for deficiency in service.

Analysis:
The judgment has examined in detail the purpose of the Act, what was the legislative institution behind it. It has expressed the opinion that the enactment was a positive step in the welfare of the society in general and providing an instrument to the common man to claim his legitimate dues in particular. The supreme court ruling has carried out the in-depth analysis of various definitions given in the Act i.e., Consumer, Service, trader, unfair trade practices etc.

After carefully examining the intent behind the Act, it has concluded that building or construction activity carried on by a statutory authority or a private builder was covered under the act before the amendment of 1993 and therefore the authorities, namely the district forum, the state Commission and the National Commission were competent to entertain complaints by a consumer for any defect or deficiency in relation to construction activity against a private builder or statutory authority. The court has carried out a detailed examination of the larger issue whether public authorities come under the jurisdiction of the Act. The appellant had argued that public authorities develop land and construct houses in discharge of their statutory function and therefore could not be subjected to the provisions of the Act. It was argued that if the ambit of the Act was widened to include statutory authorities , it would vitally affect the functioning of the official bodies . The supreme court disagreed with this view of the appellant. While analyzing the meaning of service in context of the Act it concluded that service of any description which is made available to the potential users is covered under the Act. It further held that the definition 'service' also includes facilities available to a consumer in connection with banking, insurance etc. All such activities are discharged by the statutory authorities as well as private bodies. The supreme court has rightly held that in the absence of any indication, express or implied, there is no reason to hold that authorities created by a statute are beyond the purview of the Act. The supreme court concluded that public bodies instead of claiming exclusion should subject themselves to the Act so that their acts and omission are scrutinized and be accountable for healthy growth of society. It was urged on behalf of one appellant that inclusion of 'housing construction' in the 1993 amendment indicates that the Act did not apply to it prior to the amendment as the amendment did not specifically state that it had retrospective effect. The supreme court whle agreeing that the amendment did not have retrospective effect ruled that 'housing construction' was added as a matter of abundant caution as housing as a service was already there in the Act prior to the amendment. Likewise in respect of the inclusion of the clause 'avail' in the 1993 amendment the supreme court ruled that this was added in the Act only to dispel any doubt that a consumer means a person who not only hires but also avails of any facility for consideration.

Finally the court ruled that the Commission had all the rights under the Act to award compensation not only for deficient services but also for harassment and agony caused to a consumer. Citing various case laws it was held that the State is liable to compensate for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary actions of its functionaries. It is now accepted law that even for bona fide action the State is liable to compensate if that action causes loss or injury to a person. Now there is no distinction between sovereign and non sovereign functions in determining the liability of the State because under our constitution sovereignty vests in the people. No functionary of the State can claim immunity except to the extent provided in the statute itself. Thus, the supreme court was of the opinion that all public authorities are accountable for their actions.

Conclusion:
In a sense the supreme court in this judgement has upheld the rule of law. By holding that the Commission was well within its rights to damages for harassment and this has empowered the ordinary citizen. This judgement should act as a deterrent for public authorities to not take the public for granted. It will act as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of powers. By ordering the Lucknow Development Authority to fix responsibility and recover the compensation from the defaulting employees the supreme court has set standards. Since the public authority's money is tax-payer's money, why should the tax-payer be burdened with the liability to pay compensation when the same has arisen on account of inaction or negligence on the part of some official. It is the official concerned who must pay for non-performance of his duties.

 




1 2 3 4 5
Rate this article!     Poor
Excellent    

Most viewed articles in Case Laws category
• Indra Sawhney & Others Vs.Union of India
• Scope of Part I of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
• Bangalore Water Supply Case
• ONGC v Saw Pipes
• H.L.A Hart
• Neha Bhasin v/s.Raj Anand Raj & Performer
• Case Comment on Priyadarshini Matoo case
• K.M.Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra
• Vodafone Case
• Indian Medical Association V V.P. Shantha
• A.K Kraipak v. Union of India
• A Misinterpretation & Un-Called Construction Of Section 114 Of Evidence Act: Live-In-Relationship
• Post Decisional Hearing: Development through Judicial Pronouncement and case study of Canara Bank v. V.K.Awasthi, 2005 (6) SCC 231
• His Holiness Keshvananda Bharti vs State Of Kerala with reference to Agrarian Reforms in India
• Right to privacy under Article 21: A Case study
• A Case Study on R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Most recent articles in Case Laws category
• Lucknow development authority vs M.k. Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787
• Kuldip Nayar V. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 3127
• Leopold Cafe and Stores v/s Novex Communications Pvt Ltd
• Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd
• Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and Ors v. Commissioner of Police
• Judgments on Bombay Rent Act
• Basic Principles of Law of Injunctions in India
• Mrinal Kanti Ghosh v UOI
• Constitutional vires of laws relating to Organized Crime: State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah and Ors
• A benchmark in history of the Indian Constitutional Law
• Indra Sawhney & Others Vs.Union of India
• Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court - Kailas & Ors. v/s State of Maharashtra and Taluka P.S
• K.M.Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra
• Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subash Chandra Agarwal
• Afcons infrastructure and Ors. v. Cherian Verkay Construction and Ors
• Right to privacy under Article 21: A Case study

Article Comments

there are no comments...


Welcome!
Please login or register a new free account.

Random Pick
Discretion in layman’s language means choosing from amongst the various available alternatives without reference to any predetermined criterion, no matter how fanciful that choice may be...

Statistics
» Total Articles
1549
» Total Authors
4639
» Total Views
20638803
» Total categories
42

Law Forum


Legal Articles

Lawyers in India- Click on a link below for legal Services

lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Guwahati
lawyers in Nashik

lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Dimapur
lawyers in Agra
Noida lawyers
lawyers in Siliguri

For Mutual consent Divorce in Delhi

Ph no: 9650499965
For online Copyright Registration

Ph no: 9891244487
Law Articles

lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
Faridabad lawyers

lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
Ghaziabad lawyers

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Ludhiana
Gurgaon lawyers

TOP

India's Most Trusted Online law library
Legal Services India is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) © 2000-2017
 ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3