Facts
- This case is basically vested on one argument whether the Land Development Authorities and Housing come under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and also in the amendments which came before 1993. The case was fought in the Supreme Court with an in−depth analysis.
- The section which was mainly focused in this case was section 2(1)(o) which mentioned about the definition of the consumer and the various other ambits which comes under it.
- The case was filed by the Development Authority in order to get an answer whether they were included in the definition of the consumer as per mentioned in the section of the act and thus they can claim for the damages of the goods which they had faced from the National Commission depending upon the amount of the damages which they had faced actually.
- The Plaintiff had suffered immense loss in respect to certain goods and because of which they wanted to approach the commission for the compensation of the damages suffered by them at that time.
- But they were not allowed to claim for the damages because the contention was made by the defendants that Land Development and Housing do not come under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also in the amendments that were made before 1993. In this particular case, the court had given a lot of analysis in the definition of the consumers and gave a really fair judgement in order to provide justice to the affected party
Issues
- Whether the rights and powers of the National Commission in order to hold all the statutory authorities is accountable for omissions and also award damages?
- Whether there is any liability of the state in the case of torts: Sovereign and Non−Sovereign Functions?
- Whether there has to be any compensation given for loss and injury even in the cases which results out of any actions that are authorised by law and are carried out without any negligence made?
- Whether the acts which are done in bad faith result in absolute liability on the part of the employee?
- Whether the compensation has to be made not only on the basis of the value of the goods but also on the damages for the injustices suffered?
Judgement
- 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
- 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.
- By ordering the Lucknow Development Authority to fix their compensation amount and all other things from the concerned authorities, the court had set up a real good standar
