LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus M.K. GUPTA

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus M.K. GUPTA

Statutory authorities such as Lucknow Development Authority carrying out housing construction are amenable to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Deficiency in service in relation to immovable property, including delay in delivery, incomplete or defective construction, constitutes 'service' and falls under the Act’s purview before the 1993 amendment. Consumer Commissions have jurisdiction to award compensation for both value of deficient service and for harassment or mental agony suffered, and such compensation should be recovered from responsible officials personally.

Parties
Appellant: Lucknow Development Authority; Respondent: M.K. Gupta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 November 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Deficiency in Service, Jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions, Public Authorities Liability, Compensation for Harassment
Consumer Law Administrative Law Compensation Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions Public Authorities Liability Compensation for Harassment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucknow Development Authority

Appellant

M.K. Gupta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory authorities undertaking housing construction are amenable to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  2. 2 Whether deficiency in service relating to immovable property falls under the Act prior to 1993 amendment
  3. 3 Scope and meaning of 'service', 'consumer', 'any' and 'potential' under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Statutory authorities such as Lucknow Development Authority carrying out housing construction are amenable to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Deficiency in service in relation to immovable property, including delay in delivery, incomplete or defective construction, constitutes 'service' and falls under the Act’s purview before the 1993 amendment. Consumer Commissions have jurisdiction to award compensation for both value of deficient service and for harassment or mental agony suffered, and such compensation should be recovered from responsible officials personally.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Lucknow Development Authority to fix responsibility of officers responsible for harassment within six months; compensation of Rs. 10,000 for mental harassment to be recovered proportionately from responsible officers’ salaries.
  • Appellant to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 in each case to contesting respondents.