Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.54 seconds)Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Section 2 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
29. The expansive understanding of "compensation" under the Act was
authoritatively explained in Lucknow Development Authority (supra).
Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Raje Ram on 23 October, 2008
15. Moreover, in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta (1994) 1 scc
243 and in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Raji Ram (2008) 17 SCC
407, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that construction of a house is service .
ISSUE No.2: Whether there is deficiency of service?
Bangalore Development Authority vs Syndicate Bank on 17 May, 2007
In cases of delayed or failed delivery of possession, reference may
be made to the decision in Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate
Bank (((2007) 6 SCC 711)), wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court after surveying a
catena of decisions, crystallised the governing principles relating to grant or refusal of
relief to an allottee aggrieved by delayed or non-delivery of possession. It was held
that where possession is not delivered within the stipulated or reasonable time without
justifiable cause, the allottee is entitled to refund with reasonable interest and in
appropriate cases, additional compensation depending upon the facts. Compensation is
not uniform and must be moulded in light of the nature of delay, conduct of the
14
authority, and extent of harassment suffered. The governing principles were laid down
in the said case. The relevant principle for our case on hand is (i) The quantum of
compensation to be awarded, if it is to be awarded, will depend on the facts of each
case, nature of harassment, the period of harassment and the nature of arbitrary or
capricious or negligent action of the authority which led to such harassment. And
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 17 March, 2004
In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh - Hon'ble Supreme
Court clarified that compensation cannot follow a rigid or formulaic pattern. The
quantum must depend upon the nature and extent of the loss suffered. Where
possession is eventually delivered, compensation may ordinarily be lower since the
allottee receives the benefit of appreciation; however, where refund alone is directed,
compensation may be higher as the allottee is deprived of both possession and
escalation in value. Compensation may include pecuniary loss as well as mental agony
resulting from deficiency in service.
Chief Administrator Huda & Anr vs Shakuntla Devi on 8 December, 2016
Subsequent
15
decisions, including Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A. and another v. Shakuntla Devi
and DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda Etc. reiterate that
compensation must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the loss or injury
suffered. The consumer fora must analyse the factual matrix and cannot mechanically
restrict compensation to strict financial calculations alone.
Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. vs D.S. Dhanda Etc. Etc. on 10 May, 2019
Subsequent
15
decisions, including Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A. and another v. Shakuntla Devi
and DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda Etc. reiterate that
compensation must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the loss or injury
suffered. The consumer fora must analyse the factual matrix and cannot mechanically
restrict compensation to strict financial calculations alone.
A.K. Kader Kutty And Paramadevi Goyal vs Commissioner & Secretary To ... on 14 November, 2002
31. From the above discussion we are convinced from Ex.R1 that about 35% of the
work is yet to be completed. Hence 35% of the construction amount of Rs.37,50,000/-
i.e Rs.13,12,500/- is to be refunded. The Opposite party admitted that he received
Rs.38,62,500/- which is about Rs.1,12,500/- (Rupees one lakh twelve thousand and
five hundred only) more than that what was agreed Rs.37,50,00/- (Rupees thirty
seven lakhs ad fifty thousand). This excess amount received is also to be refunded.
We quote our Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in K.A.Nagamani Vs. Housing
Commissioner reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the delay in delivery and defective conditions results in direction to refund with
interest and compensation