Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.21 seconds)The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 2 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Rameshwar Rathod on 10 July, 1990
7. In Civil Appeal No. 2954 filed by a builder it was
urged that inclusion of 'housing construction' in clause (o)
and 'avail' in clause (d) in 1993 would indicate that the
Act as it stood prior to the amendment did not apply to
hiring of services in respect of housing construction.
Learned counsel submitted that in absence of any expression
making the amendment retrospective it should be held to be
prospective as it is settled that any law
258
including amendments which materially affect the vested
rights or duties or obligations in respect of past
transactions should remain untouched. Reliance was placed
on Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim5; State
of M.P. v. Rameshwar Rathod6 and Pulborough School Board
Election case, Re7. It was also argued that when definition
of 'service' in Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
Act was amended in 1991 it was made retrospective.
Therefore, in absence of use of similar expression in this
Act it should be deemed to be prospective. True, the
ordinance does not make the definition retrospective in
operation. But it was not necessary. In fact it appears to
have been added by way of abundant caution as housing
construction being service was included even earlier. Apart
from that what was the vested right of the contractor under
the agreement to construct the defective house or to render
deficient service? A legislation which is enacted to
protect public interest from undesirable activities cannot
be construed in such narrow manner as to frustrate its
objective. Nor is there any merit in the submission that in
absence of the word 'avail of' in the definition of
consumer' such activity could not be included in service. A
perusal of the definition of 'service' as it stood prior to
1993 would indicate that the word 'facility' was already
there. Therefore the legislature while amending the law in
1993 added the word in clause (d) to dispel any doubt that
consumer in the Act would mean a person who not only hires
but avails of any facility for consideration. It in fact
indicates that these words were added more to clarify than
to add something new.
State Of Bombay (Now Gujarat) vs Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam on 5 May, 1967
In State of Gujarat v.
Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam8 the order of the High Court
directing payment of compensation for disposal of seized
vehicles without waiting for the outcome of decision in
appeal was upheld both on principle of bailee's 'legal
obligation to preserve the property intact and also the
obligation to take reasonable care of it ... to return it in
the same condition in
5 (1976) 2 SCC 917
6 (1990) 4 SCC 21 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 522: AIR 1990 SC 1849
7 Pulborough School Board Election v. Nutt, (1891-94) All ER
834
8 AIR 1967 SC 1885 : (1967) 3 SCR 938
259
which it was seized' and also because the Government was,
'bound to return the said property by reason of its
statutory obligation or to pay its value if it had disabled
itself from returning it either by its own act or by act of
its agents and servants'.
Bishambar Nath And Others vs The Agra Nagar Mahapalika Agra And ... on 28 March, 1973
It was extended further even to
bona fide action of the authorities if it was contrary to
law in Lala Bishambar Nath v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra9.
It was held that where the authorities could not have taken
any action against the dealer and their order was invalid,
'it is immaterial that the respondents had acted bona fide
and in the interest of preservation of public health. Their
motive may be good but their orders are illegal. They would
accordingly be liable for any loss caused to the appellants
by their action.' The theoretical concept that King can do
no wrong has been abandoned in England itself and the State
is now held responsible for tortuous act of its servants.
The First Law Commission constituted after coming into force
of the Constitution on liability of the State in tort,
observed that the old distinction between sovereign and non-
sovereign functions should no longer be invoked to determine
liability of the State. Friedmann observed:
Shyam Sunder And Othes vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 March, 1974
We respectfully agree
with Mathew, J. in Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan11 that
it is not necessary, 'to consider whether there is any
rational dividing line between the so-called sovereign and
proprietary or commercial functions for determining the
liability of the State' (SCC p. 695, para 20). In any case
the law has always maintained that the public authorities
who are entrusted with statutory function cannot act
negligently.