VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The National Commission should dispose first appeal u/s 19 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 after considering each of the questions raised and grounds urged in support of appeal in accordance with evidence on record and by drawing its conclusions thereon. And not by a short cryptic order without considering these, as in this case.

ORDER

Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon who is appellant in one of these appeals and respondent in another matter made an application for allotment of a plot in Phase-II Patiala to the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) which is the respondent in one matter and appellant in the other.

2. A plot of land bearing No. 4170-C measuring about 507.50 sq. yards under certain terms and conditions by an order made on 25.2.1980 was given. While Dr. Dhillon claims that she was given possession of the land in June, 1998 the Authority contends that such possession was offered as early as 1983. She filed certain proceedings before the authorities and subsequently approached the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) Punjab claiming various reliefs. The State Commission formulated three questions for consideration (i) whether there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Authority in delaying delivery of actual possession to Mrs. Dhillon, (ii) whether Dr. Dhillon suffered losses on account of negligent act on the part of the Authority in the matter of delivery of possession, and (iii) with regard to claim of compensation payable, if any.

3. The State Commission answered all these questions in favour of Dr. Dhillon and directed payment of a compensation of Rs. 9 lacs along with certain other amounts by way of interest, etc. In the first appeal filed by the Authority before the (National) Commission all findings were under challenge and in addition raised other grounds. The Commission noted that the arguments were heard at length but disposed of the matter by a short cryptic order stating as follows :

"Having regard to facts of the case, in our opinion the State Commission has rightly awarded the interest at 18% from the date of last installment paid. Therefore, that part of the order is sustained. So far as compensation of Rs. 9.00 lakhs is concerned, we are of the view that it is on the higher side. We reduce the compensation to Rs. 4.00 lakhs. The amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- on account of harassment is deleted. The stay application and the appeal are both disposed of as above. The order is to be carried out within two months from today."

4. Complaint now made is that the appeal filed by the authority should have been considered on all questions raised before the State Commission and could not have drawn any inference without discussing all the material on record with reference to the contentions raised before it. Moreover, when a question relating to computation of damages arises necessarily a due assessment will have to be made with reference to the material on record. That exercise also was not done. The Authority is therefore aggrieved by this order of the National Commission. Dr. Dhillon is also aggrieved by the order made by the National Commission in slashing down the damages paid to her from 9 lacs to 4 lacs without setting out any reason except to say that in their point of view a compensation of Rs. 4 lacs would be sufficient. In the circumstances we set aside the order made by the National Commission and remit the matter back to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law in particular we may point out that each of the questions raised before the National Commission and grounds urged in support of appeal ought to be considered in accordance with evidence on record and draw a conclusion. We hope that the National Commission will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from today. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.

(N.K.R.) Appeals allowed. Matter remanded to National Commission.

**************

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

Dalbir Kaur Dhillon v. Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority, 2001(5) Supreme 309 : 2001 (1) CPJ 18 : 2001 (4) Civil L.J. 115

00022