Delhi High Court - Orders
Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Lt Udhay Bhan Singh & Ors on 5 September, 2022
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~55(Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 907/2022 & CM APPL.38886/2022, CM
APPL.38887/2022, CM APPL.38888/2022, CM
APPL.38889/2022
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anshuman Sharma, Adv.
versus
LT UDHAY BHAN SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 05.09.2022
CM APPL.38887/2022, CM APPL.38888/2022, CM
APPL.38889/2022 (exemptions)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
CM(M) 907/2022 & CM APPL.38886/2022 (stay)
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding, of the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to the effect that the respondent was a "consumer" vis-a-vis the petitioner is directly contrary to the recent enunciation of the law in para 25 of the report in Janpriya Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Soni 1, which reads 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1269 CM(M) 907/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:07.09.2022 12:45:25 thus:
"25. We have indicated the scheme of the Act. A claim can succeed in a case of this nature if the consumer establishes deficiency of service. No doubt, the law giver contemplates other elements as contemplated in the definition of the word 'complaint'. The word 'deficiency' has been widely worded. Equally so, is the word 'service'. A statute of this nature must, indeed, if possible, be construed in favour of the consumer. However, that is a far cry from holding that if deficiency is not established, yet the opposite party must bear the liability which cannot be thrust on its shoulders. We would clarify that by making it clear that what we intend to say is that when there is no privity between the complainant and the opposite party, the opposite party could not become liable under the Act. In other words, if there is no law under which a person is to provide a service and if it does not fall within the residuary clause, namely, 'otherwise' as defined under the word 'deficiency', it is necessary for a consumer to succeed, that there must be a contract. It is in that context, we indicated that the existence of an obligation under a contract is a sine qua non for a consumer to successfully prosecute a case under the Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. Mr. Sharma submits that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondents and that, therefore, the respondents could not have maintained a consumer complaint against the petitioner, given the law laid down in the aforesaid decision.
5. In view thereof, issue notice, returnable on 9th February 2023.
6. Notice be served on the respondents by all modes including dasti as well as through learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents before the learned NCDRC, if any.
CM(M) 907/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:07.09.2022 12:45:257. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks, with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder before the next date of hearing.
8. Mr. Sharma submits that 50% of the amount as granted by the learned SCDRC already stands deposited by his client. Accordingly there shall be a stay of operation of the impugned orders of the learned SCDRC and NCDRC insofar as the balance amount is concerned, till the next date of hearing.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J SEPTEMBER 5, 2022/kr CM(M) 907/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:07.09.2022 12:45:25