GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS BALBIR SINGH

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

S.N.VARIAVA, H.K.SEMA
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
BALBIR SINGH – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Mr. K.B. Sinha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshta, Mr. Manish Singhvi, Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr. A.S. Rawat, Mr. P. Narasimbah Mr. K.N. Nagpal, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Mr. Prainod Swarup, Mr. Y. Prabhakar sharma Rao, Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Mr. Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Mr. Bharat Singh, Mr. Amit Pawan, Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad, Mr. Anil Nag, Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, Mr. Shibashish Misra, Mr. Devesh Singh, Mr. Paraney Ranjan, Mr. Praneet Ranjan, Mr. S.C. Paul, Mr. Manoj Kulshreshtha, Mr. Ashok Yadav, Ms. Chanchal Goyal, Mr. C.L Bashal, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Mr. S.P. Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Atrey, Mr. Shishir Singh, Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Mr. Satinder S. Gulati, Dr. Kailash Chand. Mr. Satish Aggarwal, Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, Mr. S.L Aneja, Mohd. Tahir Siddiqui, Mr. Devcndra Singh, Mr. B.C. Pandey, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Mr P.N. Puri, Mr. V. Sudeer, Mr M.B. Rama Subba Raju,Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. S. Sunita, Mr. S. Srinivasan. Mr. Dcbasis Misra, Mr. P.D. Sharma, Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. P.K. Aggrawal, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Mr. Uma Datta ,Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Mrs. Rashmi Khanna, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Mr Surya Kant, Mr. Syed Ahmed, Mr. Syed Tauzoecr Ahmed, Mr. R.D. Upadhyay, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Mr. Suresh C. Gupta, Mr. A. Guneshwar Sharma, Mr. J.K. Pali, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Mr. Chandra Prakash Pandey, Mr. Rarneshwar Prasad Goyal, Mr. B.R. Sharma, Mr. Rajeev K. Singh, Mr. P.N. Ramalingam ,Mr. S.K. Nandy, Mr. Alok Gupta, Ms. Indra Sawohney, Ms. Amita Gupta, Mr. Pramjeet Singh Lamba, Ms. Neetam Tiwari, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Mr. M.P. Shorawala, Mr. K.L. Janjani, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dr. Vinod Tiwari, Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Mrs. Rashmi Khanna, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Mr. Surya Kant, Mr. Pradeep Misra, Mr Sandeep Kumar, Dr. I.B. Gaur, Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Mr K.S. Rana, Mr. A.K. Sen Gupta, Mr. M. Jayasree, Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Mr. K.C. Kaushik, Mr. Gulshan Bajwa (NP), Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Dr. Meera Aggarwal, Mr Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Mr. Ashutosh Verma, Mr. Amit Singh, Mr Amit Kumar, Mr. Kuldip Singh. Mr. Prabhijit Jauhar, Mr S.S. Jauhar, Ms. S. Narang, Mr Raj Kumar Mehta, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Mr Himinder Lal, Mr. S.B. Sinha, Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Mr. Sheo Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Anuju, Mr. A.N. Baradaiyar, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Mrs. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Mr. Mahesh Srivastava for M/s. I.M. Nanavati Associates, Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave, Mr. Brij Bhushan, Mr. Ranjit Khatri. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Mr. L.C. Goyal, Mr. A.S. Rawat and Mr. Javed Mahmud Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondent in C.A. No. 8400/2002: In person
For the Respondent in C.A. No. 8418/2002: In person
For the Respondent in C.A. No. 8407/2002: In person
For the Respondent in C.A. No. 7224/2002: In person
For the Respondent in SI.P(C) No. 6079/2003: In person
For the Respondent in SLP (C) No. 6084/2003: In person
For the Respondent in SLP(C) No. 9600/2003: In person
For the Respondent in SLP(C) No. 9663/2003: In person
For the Respondent in SLP(C) No. 9062/2003: In person
For the Respondent in SLP(C) No. 6306/2003: In person
For the Respondent in C,A. No. 393/2003: In person
For the Respondent in C,A. No. 409/2003: in person

Judgement Key Points

The court in this case emphasized that compensation under the Consumer Protection Act must be closely linked to a proven deficiency of service or misfeasance in public office, which results in loss or injury to the consumer. It clarified that the award of compensation is not automatic and must be based on specific findings of such deficiency, negligence, or arbitrary conduct that causes harm or loss to the consumer. The court underscored the importance of establishing a clear causal relationship between the deficiency or negligence and the injury suffered before awarding compensation. Therefore, the court held that compensation must have a direct nexus with the proven deficiency or negligence, and it cannot be awarded arbitrarily or uniformly without considering the facts and the extent of loss or injury.

ORDER

1. In this batch of matters the question is whether grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum by the Consumer Forums in ail cases is justifiable. As facts are varying, at this stage, this Court is only dealing with the question of law. Thereafter this Court shall take up each case separately.

2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission considered a bunch of matters, the lead matter being the case of Haryana Urban Devlopment Authority v. Darsh Kumar. The Commission held, in those cases, that in cases of deficiency of service by Development Authorities like HUDA and GDA, interest must be awarded at the rate of 18% per annum and that this would take into consideration the escalation in the cost of construction as well.

3. Pursuant to this Judgment the National Commission has been disposing of all subsequent matters with a one paragraph order which, for all practical purposes, reads as under:

"We have already taken a view in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar [Revision Petition No. 1197 of 1998], where we have upheld the award of interest at the rate of 18% per annum. We have provided for certain period during which the interest would not r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

S.N.VARIAVA, H.K.SEMAGHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – AppellantVersusBALBIR SINGH – Respondent

Cases Referred (9)

S.N.VARIAVA, H.K.SEMA
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
BALBIR SINGH – Respondent