LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA & ANR. versus SHAKTI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 13-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 12 
A 
LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA & ANR. 
V. 
SHAKTI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY 
LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1866 of 2002) 
B 
APRIL 13, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
.. 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : 
c 
s. 2(r) - Unfair trade practice - Scope of- Held: A finding 
of unfair trade practice should be supported by cogent 
material - Inferential finding is npt sufficient to attract s. 2(r). 
D 
Unfair trade practice - Land belonging to co-operative 
Societies - Acquisition of by Trust - On condition to allot plots 
to the Co··operative Societies - Abandonment of acquisition 
- Later Trust allotting the plots as a condition of acquisition, 
except one plot - Society asking for allotment of alternative 
plot in lieu of the one. plot - Complaint before consumer forum 
E - allowed and affinned by appellate fora - On appeal, Held: 
Non allotment of alternative plot does not amount to unfair 
trade practice - Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922- s. 56. 
Words and Phrases - 'Unfair trade practice' - Meaning 
F of, in the context of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
Appellant-Trust, pursuant to formulation of a Model 
Town Extension Scheme, initiated land acquisition 
proceedings. Lands owned by co-operative societies, 
G 
including the land owned by respondent co-operative 
society, were notified as part of the land proposed to be 
acquired. Before passing of the award, by Government 
notification land belonging to certain societies, including 
respondent-Society, were exempted from acquisition. 
Thereafter, respondent-Society requested the Trust to 
H 
12 
LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. SHAKTI 
13 
CO-OP. HOUSE BUil. SOCIETY LTD. 
·'°' 
@!lgt plots to their members as certain portions of their A 
land were under encroachment, and the same was 
denied. After new Chairman of the Trust assumed the 
office, the ploto wore allotted to the reapondont·Socloty 
except one plot (plot No. 32) because tho same was 
declared to be belonging to third party by court decroo. B 
Respondent requested the Trust to allot alternative plot 
In lieu of plot No. 32. As there was no response to that, 
,, 
respondent filed a compliant before consumer forum. 
Distri.ct forum allowed the complaint and directed the 
~~pellant-Trust to allot alternative plot. The order was c 
affirmed by State Consumer Commission as well as 
National Consumer Commission. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELO: _1. Non-delivery of a plot In lieu of Plot No. 32 
by the appellanf:. Trust to the respondent-Society does not 
amount to 11unfair trade practice" within the meaning of 
Section 2 (r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. [Para 11) 
[21·G-H; 22·A] 
E 
2. The definition of the term 'unfair trade practice' has 
been specifically provided In Section 2 (r) of Consumer 
~ 
Protection Act. Any trade practice which Is adopted for 
the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any 
F 
goods or for the provision of any service, by adopting 
any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice has to 
be treated as "unfair trade practice" for which an action 
under the provisions of the Act would lie, provided, the 
complainant is able to establish that he is a consumer 
within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. [Para 12) G 
[22-B; 22·0-E] 
Mis Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. M.R. T.P. Commission 
and Anr. (1989) 3 sec 251, relied on. 
H 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
3. It is true that the Consumer Protection Act being a 
benevolent piece of legislation intended to protect the 
consumers from exploitation, the provisions thereof 
should receive a liberal construction; technicalities 
should be E!schewed and grievances of the consumers 
B deserve to be redressed expeditiously. Yet, the power 
exercised by the three consumer fora for redressal of 
consumer complaints being quasi-judicial in nature, they 
are required to take into consideration all the relevant 
factors and the material brought on record by both the 
C parties. The averments in the complaint by the consumer 
cannot be taken as a Gospel truth. To support a finding 
of "unfair trade practice", there has to be some cogent 
.material before the Commission and any inferential 
finding is not sufficient to attract Section 2 (r) of the Act. 
The burden of proof, the nature of proof and adequacy 
D thereof depends upon the facts and circumstances of 
each case. [Para 16) [23-F-H; 24-A-B] 
4. It is manifest from the orders of the St

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