LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus M.K. GUPTA

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 05-11-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, R.M. SAHAI

Judgment (excerpt)

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
M.K. GUPTA 
NOVEMBER 5, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986;-Social benefit oriented legisla-
tion-/'rovisions of Act to be construed in favour of consume~urt to adopt 
constructive approach. 
A 
B 
.C 
Consumner Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2(c) 11,2 and 16-Jurisdic-
tion of Commission-Word 'consumer'--Deficiency in service relating to im-
movable property--lurisdiction of Commission not ousted. 
Consumer Protection Act, 198~Section 2(o}-Service-Meaning and 
scope of-Words '~y· and 'potential'-Meaning of. 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Jurisdiction-Whether public 
authorities are amenable to jurisdiction under Act-Held, ye.r-A government 
or semi-government body or a local authority would be as much amenable 
to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service. 
Consumer Protection Act, 198~Section 2(o}-Service-Expression 
'housing construction'-whether housing construction or building activity was 
service within meaning of Section 2(o) as it stood before 1993 amend-
ment-Held, yes. 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 11, 17 and 21-Jurisdiction 
to award compensation-Compensation includes value of goods or services 
and also for suff erence of injustice. 
D 
E 
F 
Consumer Protection Act, 198~Section 14-Compen.!lation-Liability G 
to pay-Misfeasance in. public office-Comp~nsation for harassment, mental . 
agony or oppression to consumer-Amount to be recovered from officials of 
department found responsible. 
Words & Phrases : 'Housing Construction~ 'any' and 'potential'-
Meaning of in the context of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
H 
615 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.Clt:. 
A 
The appellant, Lucknow Development Authority undertook develop-
ment of land and formed plots of different categories/sizes and con· 
structed dwelling units for people belonging to different income groups; 
Applications were invited from persons desirous of purchasing plots or 
dwelling house. The respondent applied fo~ registration for allotment of 
B a flat in the category of Middle Income Group on cash down basis. Since 
the number of applicants was more, the authority decided to draw lots 
in which a flat was allotted to the respondent. The entire payment was 
made in July 1988 and the. flat was registered in the name of the 
respondent in August 1988 the development Authority directed its 
C Executive Engineer to hand over the possession of the Oat to the 
respondent. However, the flat was not delivered as the construction was 
not complete. The respondent approached the authority but no steps 
were. ta~n nor possession was handed over. 
D 
· The respondent filed a complaint before the District ·Forum 
alleging that even after payment of entire amount in respect of cash 
down scheme the appellant was not handing over possession. The 
Commissioner directed the Authority to pay 12% simple interest upon 
the deposit made by the respondent for the period. The appellant was 
further directed to hand over possession of the Oat without delay after 
E 
completing construction work upto June 1990. The Commission further 
directed that if it was not possible to complete the construction then the 
-appellant should hand over possession of the Oat to the respondent by 
5th April 1990 after determining the deficiencies and the estimated cost 
of such deficient construction shall be refunded to the respondent by 
F 
20th April 1990. The appellant challenged this order before the National 
Commission and raised the question of jurisdiction. The objection was 
overruled and the appeal was dismissed. The cross appeal filed by the 
respondent was allowed. The appellant was directed. to pay the !!Ost ·of 
completing construction estimated by the architect of the appellant in 
G October 1989. The Commission held that the action of the appellant 
amounted to harassment, mental torture· and agony of the respondent, 
therefore, it directed the Authority to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as 
compensation. Bence these appeals. 
H 
The questions of law which arose for consideration were whether 
. 
L.D.A v. M.K. GUPTA 
617 
the statutory authorities constituted under State Act to carry on planned · A 
development of the cities were amenable to Consumer Protection Act, 
1986 for any act or omission relating to housing activity such_ as delay 
in delivery of possession of the houses to the allottees, non-completion 
of the Oat within the stipulated time, or defective and

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