SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

Supreme Court of India
Ruma Pal & AR. Lakshmanan Dr., JJ.
Haryana Urban Development Authority—Appellant
versus
B.K. Sood—Respondents
Appeal (Civil) 6572 of 2005—Decided on 26.10.2005

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. S.S. Gulati and Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjeev Bhatnagar and Mr. Debasis Misra, Advocates.

The claim of the respondent was found to be barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Compensation - Section 24A

Fact of the Case:

The appellant held an auction of booth sites plots/building at No. 90, Sector 9 at Panchkula on free hold basis in 1986. The respondent bid for one booth/site plot which was accepted by the appellant. An allotment letter was issued on 12th January, 1987. The respondent did not pay all the instalments, leading to a dispute.

Finding of the Court:

The National Commission had awarded compensation to the respondent, but the appellant challenged the decision. The National Commission's decision was set aside due to the claim being barred by limitation and incorrect factual basis for the compensation awarded.

Issues: The main issues were the outstanding payments by the respondent, alleged deficiencies in the booth site, and the compensation claimed by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The claim of the respondent was found to be barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The National Commission's decision was set aside due to incorrect factual basis for the compensation awarded.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the National Commission directing the appellant to pay compensation to the respondent was set aside.

JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.—Leave granted.

In this appeal an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “National Commission”) is challenged to the extent that the National Commission had awarded two lac compensation which was to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.

2. The appellant held an auction of booth sites plots/building at No. 90, Sector 9 at Panchkula on free hold basis in 1986. The respondent bid for one booth/site plot which was accepted by the appellant. An allotment letter was issued on 12th January, 1987 to the respondent in which it was mentioned that the allotted area of the booth/ site was 45.37 sq. meters including the side verandah at a price of Rs. 2,53,000/- which could be paid in instalments. After adjusting the earnest money deposited, the respondent was required to pay the balance of 25% of the price of the plot within 30 days upon which the possession of the booth site would be given. The balance amount of the purchase price of Rs. 1,89,750.00 was payable in ten half yearly instalments, the first of which was payable after the expiry of six months. In terms of the allotment letter the last instalment was payable on 12th December, 1991. The allotment letter also mentioned that each instalment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at 10% interest on the remaining amount which would start to accrue from the date of offer of possession of the said booth.

3. The respondent admittedly did not pay all the instalments. The total amount paid was Rs.1,45,790, leaving outstanding a sum of Rs. 2,03,580 inclusive of interest calculated upto 12th November, 1991. The appellant issued several notices of demand to the respondent. According to the appellant, pursuant to one of the notices, the respondent had appeared on 18th December, 1991 and promised to pay the outstanding dues by 31st December, 1992. However, no payment was made. Ultimately the appellant issued a notice on 31st May, 1996 to the respondent demanding payment.

4. On 6th April, 1997 the respondent filed a complaint before the State Consumer Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in which the respondent claimed an order directing the setting aside of the notice of demand dated 31st May, 1996. They also asked for removal of the “deficiencies” in the booth and for compensation on account of damage to the extent of Rs. 10 lac for the appellant’s alleged gross failure in discharging their legal duties which had allegedly “caused extensive losses in terms of business, health, mental peace, family up-bringing, education of children etc.” of the respondent and for an amount on account of “extreme deficiency of service” on the appellant’s part.

The deficiencies alleged in the complaint were as follows:

(a) The booth of which possession was given by the appellant measured only 2.75 x 8.25 sq. mts. as against the advertised area of 5.5 x 8.25 sq. mts.

(b) Unauthorized bhatties had been kept in the verandah of the neighbouring shop which had seriously affected the health and business of the respondent.

(c) The appellant had unauthorisedly sanctioned a STD/PCO in front of the respondent’s booth due to which the respondent had lost the advantage of having purchased a corner booth.

5. The appellant filed an affidavit before the State Commission countering the submissions in the respondent’s complaint and stating that the complaint was barred by time. On the merits it was said that the respondent had been given possession of 5.5 sq.mts. x 8.25 sq.mts. after which the respondent had constructed the booth at the corner site. As far as the bhatties were concerned, it was stated that they had already been removed. In connection with the allegations regarding the sanction of STD/PCO booth, it was stated that the same had been constructed far away from the booth of the respondent. It was submitted that there was no deficiency in the service


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top