CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY- /Opp. Party vs M.M. SOOD

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 4 May 1990 · Citation: 1991 0 CPC 60 : 1991 1 CPR 612 : 1992 2 CPJ 499

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.Balakrishna Eradi , A.S.Vijayakar , Y.Krishan , Rais Ahmed J.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 307 words
1.

AFTER hearing Counsel appearing for both sides we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the State Commission that there was delay in the delivery of possession of a house to the complainant and that the complainant is also aggrieved by reason of the existence of a sewage line in the courtyard of the premises allotted to him are perfectly justified by the materials available on record.

2.

WE are also satisfied that the State Commission has acted correctly in awarding interest to the complainant by way of compensation for the delay in the delivery of the house as well as a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience caused to him due to the existence of the sewage line in his courtyard. The learned Counsel for the Respondent (complainant) urged before us that we should enhance the compensation awarded by way of interest by allowing a higher rate of interest and also increasing the period for which interest has been allowed. We do not find any grounds for accepting this submission and decline to interfere with the award of compensation already made by the State Commission.

It is necessary to mention that the Counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary objection that the Lucknow Development Authority does not come within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act as it is not an organisation rendering ''service'' as defined in the Act. This contention cannot stand in view of the decisions already rendered by us in I (1991) CPJ 1 (NC)=First Appeal No. 5 of 1989. - U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. Garima Shukla & Ors. and the subsequent cases following it.

3.

THE order passed by the State Commission is, accordingly confirmed and this appeal in dismissed. THEre will be no directions regarding the costs. Complaint dismissed.