LexGHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus BALBIR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BALBIR SINGH MARCH 17, 2004 B [S.N. VARIAVA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986: C Consumer Forums-Jurisdiction-In cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities-Held, Act has a wide reach and the National Consumer Disputes Redressa/ Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities-Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office, i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or irijury is D suffered by a citizen. Lucknow Development Authority v. MK. Gupta, [1994) I SCC 243, relied on. E Statutory/public authorities--Deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office-Compensation for loss/injury/harassment/mental agony- Accountability of erring officer-Held, the word 'compensation' is of a very wide connotation-It may canst itute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult p or injury or loss-Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or service but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him-Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to ma/a fide or capricious or oppressive act-Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an G officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation-If the Commission/Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then after recording a finding it must direct the authority to pay compensation and then also direct recovery from those found responsible H for such unpardonable behaviour-Where there is a specific finding of 68 G.D.A. v. BALBIR SINGH 69 misfeasance in public office compensation for mental agony can be granted- A The compensation has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury-The Forum or Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury--Alongwith recompensating the loss the Commission!F orum may also compensate fo• harassment/injury B both mental and physical-Administrative law-Public authorities- Negligence-Accountability. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, [1994] 1 SCC 243, relied on. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India, [2000) 6 SCC 113, referred to. c Development authorities-Deficiency in service-Interest granted by Consumer Forums-Nature of-National Consumer Disputes Redressal D Commission granting 18% interest holding that this would take into consideration the escalation in cost of construction as well-Contention that interest is to be awarded keeping in view the rates of interest payable by financial institutions on deposits with them-Held, in all these cases interest is awarded as and by way of compensation/damages-Whilst so awarding it E must be shown that there is relationship between the amount awarded and the default/unjustifiable delay/harassment-It is thus necessary that there be separate awards under each such head . with reasons why such award is justified-The principle that interest must be granted at the current rate of interest is only applicable where the proceedings are for recovery of debt or F damages-They apply where a refund of .amount is being claimed and the direction is to refund amount with interest-The principles which govern grant of interest do not apply to grant of compensation. Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, (2002) 1 SCC 367; In Defence of Amit Das v. State of Bihar, [2001] 2 SCC 9 and United India Insurance Co. G Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, [2002) 6 SCC 281, cited. Development authority-Allotment of flats/plots-Deficiency in service- Cases before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission involving varying and differentfacts--Commission awarding 18% interest uniformly in H 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 3 S.C.R. A all cases-Held, Commission has been awarding interest at a flat rate of 18% / irrespective of the facts of each case-This is unsustainable-Compensation cannot be uniform-Award of compensation must be under different separate heads and must vary from case to case depending on the fac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.