Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President; Smt. A.S. Vijayakar, Member;
Dr. A.K. Ghosh, Member; Mr. Y. Krishan, Member; Dr. Rais Ahmed, Member
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,
(HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD)––Appellant
versus
C.P. SHARMA & OTHERS––Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 6 and 7 of 1989—Decided on 22.8.1989
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Shri O.P. Rana, Sr. Advocate; Shri Dilip Pillai Advocate.
For the Respondent: Shri C.P. Sharma.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 applies to the U.P. Housing and Development Board and the Board is liable for its failure to allot a ready-built house to a consumer.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - APPLICABILITY TO U.P. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD - SECTIONS 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) - ACT APPLIES TO THE BOARD - BOARD LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO ALLOT READY BUILT HOUSE - COMPENSATION AWARDED.
Fact of the Case:
The U.P. Housing and Development Board failed to allot a ready-built house to the Respondent-Complainant despite the lapse of three years. The Respondent-Complainant eventually accepted a plot and filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, alleging deficiency in service by the Board.
Finding of the Court:
The National Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 applies to the U.P. Housing and Development Board and that the complaint was maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the State Commission, and the National Commission. The Commission also found that the Board was liable for its failure to allot a ready-built house to the Respondent-Complainant and awarded compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 applies to the U.P. Housing and Development Board? 2. Whether the complaint was maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the State Commission, and the National Commission? 3. Whether the Board was liable for its failure to allot a ready-built house to the Respondent-Complainant? 4. Whether the compensation awarded by the State Commission was just and reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The National Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 applies to the U.P. Housing and Development Board because the Board is a 'service provider' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the allotment of houses is a 'service' as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. 2. The Commission held that the complaint was maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the State Commission, and the National Commission because the Board is a 'service provider' and the allotment of houses is a 'service' under the Act. 3. The Commission held that the Board was liable for its failure to allot a ready-built house to the Respondent-Complainant because the Board had a contractual obligation to do so and the failure to do so amounted to a deficiency in service. 4. The Commission held that the compensation awarded by the State Commission was just and reasonable because it took into account the inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the Respondent-Complainant due to the Board's failure to allot a ready-built house.
Final Decision: The National Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Board and upheld the order of the State Commission awarding compensation to the Respondent-Complainant.
Y. Krishan, Member—First Appeal No. 6 of 1989 is directed against an order of the State Commission, U.P. dated 20th March, 1989 rejecting certain preliminary objections raised by the appellant herein, who was the Opposite Party before the State Commission, contending that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable to the U.P. Housing and Development Board and that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission.
2. First Appeal No. 7/89 is an appeal against the final order of 19.4.89 passed by the U.P. State Commission on the merits of the case awarding compensation to the Respondent- Complainant under the Consumer Protection Act for failure of the Board to allot a ready built house to the Respondent.
3. So far as the appeal relating to the sustainability of the preliminary objections contesting the applicability of the C.P. Act to the case is concerned, this Commission has dealt with this identical question in the order passed by us in F.A. No. 5/89 U.P. Development Board v. Garima Shukla and Ors. In that order, this Commission has gone into the question in detail and held that the provisions of the Act apply to the U.P. Development Board. No new point has been put forward by the Board in the present appeal. In fact, the preliminary objections in this case are a verbatim reproduction of the preliminary objections in Garima Shukla’s case. For the reasons already stated in the Commission’s order of 27th July, 1989 in U.P. Housing and Development Board v. Garima Shukla & Ors. this appeal is dismissed.
4. As regards F.A. No. 7/89, the appellant has made no substantial point against the reliefs granted by the State Commission. In fact, in the memo of appeal, the preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum have been repeated. The reliefs granted by the State Commission, the quantum of compensation in particular have not been assailed. During the oral submission before the Commission on the date of hearing, the counsel for the Housing and Development Board attacked the quantum of compensation granted to the Respondent on the grounds that :-
(i) he had inflated the number of visits he had to pay to Lucknow and Bulandshahar to pursue his case for which he had claimed reimbursement;
(ii) he was actually paying @ 10% as interest on the house building loan he had raised from his employer whereas he had claimed interest at the rate of 18% from Board; and
(iii) Though the value of the plot now allotted to the Respondent had appreciated considerably, he had been only charged the original price as prevalent in 1985. The counsel suggested that thereby the appellant had derived undue benefit from the Board.He, therefore, pleaded that the compensation granted was unjust and excessive;
(iv) The Counsel for the Board also submitted that, in spite of research, he had not been able to locate the notification issued by the State Government constituting the State Commission. He contended that the Commission had not been established by the process of law and hence all the proceedings before the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act including the impugned judgment were null and void.
5. The Respondent-Complainant explained satisfactorily the number of visits he had to pay to Lucknow and Bulandshahar and submitted that the Board was charging 18% interest from the applicant/allottees on the amount overdue from them to the Board and hence in equity it must pay the interest at the same rate on the amount it owes to others.
6. After carefully persuing the records and taking into account the submissions made by the parties, we find that the Respondent-Complainant was to be allotted a ready-built house by the Board. On the failure of the Board to do so even after the lapse of three years, the Respondent-Complainant had eventually to accept a plot. We note with regret that the Board made the allot
