HUDA versus VIDYA CHETAL

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 516 · Decided: 16-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (NOW GLADA)
v.
VIDYA CHETAL
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4272 of 2015)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – ss.2(1)(d)-(g), 2(1)(o) –
Interpretation of – Law laid down by Supreme Court in HUDA vs.
Sunita holding that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (NCDRC) had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality
behind the demand of “composition fee” and “extension fee” made
by HUDA, as the same being statutory obligation, does not qualify
as “deficiency in service” – Validity of – Held: Certain statutory
dues, such as fees, can arise out of a specific relation – Such statutory
dues might be charged as quid pro quo for a privilege conferred or
service rendered by the authority – There are exactions which are
for the common burden, like taxes, there are dues for a specific
purpose, like cess, and there are dues in lieu of specific service
rendered – Not all statutory dues/exactions are amenable to the
jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum – Exactions, like tax and cess
levied as a part of common burden or for a specific purpose,
generally may not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer
Forum – However, those statutory fees, levied in lieu of service
provided, may in the usual course be subject matter of Consumer
Forum’s jurisdiction provided that there is a ‘deficiency in service’
etc. – Service provided by the petitioner squarely comes under the
ambit of ‘service’ – Determination of the dispute concerning the
validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of “deficiency
in service”, can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the
provisions of the Act – Decision of Supreme Court in the case of
HUDA vs. Sunita, was rendered without considering any of the
previous judgments of Supreme Court and the objects of the Act –
Law laid down in the aforesaid case does not hold good and is
overruled – Present special leave petitions be placed before an
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 516
516
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
517
appropriate Bench for considering the case on merits after obtaining
orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India – Interpretation of
Statutes.
Words & Phrases – Meaning of expression ‘deficiency in
services’ – Explained – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(g),
2(1)(o).
Interpretation of Statutes – Beneficial/remedial legislation –
Interpretation of – Discussed.
Words & Phrases – Distinction between ‘tax’ and statutory
dues, such as ‘fees’  – Held: Tax is a mandatory imposition by public
authority for public purpose enforceable by law – There is no element
of quid pro quo between the tax payer and the public authority –
However, certain statutory dues, such as fees, can arise out of a
specific relation – Such statutory dues might be charged as quid pro
quo for a privilege conferred or a service rendered by the authority.
Answering the reference, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Beneficial or remedial legislation needs to be
given ‘fair and liberal interpretation’. Meaning of deficiency is
explained as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy
in quality, nature and manner of performance of any service or
supply of goods, in terms of standards set by the parties
themselves through contract or otherwise, or imposed by the
law in force. The basis for application of the consumer laws hinges
on the relationship between the service provider and consumer.
The usage of ‘otherwise’ within the provision subsumes other
modes of standard setting alternative instruments other than
contracts such as laws, bye-laws, rules and customary practices
etc. Service is defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. This definition is not exhaustive rather the
legislature has left the task to expound the provision on a case
to case basis to the judiciary. The purpose of leaving this provision
open ended, without providing an exhaustive list indicates the
requirement for a liberal interpretation. Broadly speaking, it is
inclusive of all those services performed for a consideration,
except gratuitous services and contract of personal services.
Moreover, aforesaid provision reflects the legislative intent of
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW
GLADA) v. VIDYA CHETAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
providing impetus to ‘consumerism’. Sovereign functions like
judicial decision makin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.