9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of compensation awarded by National Commission to respondent. 2. Alleged deficiencies in booth site possession and services provided. 3. Barred by time - Limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Issue 1: Validity of Compensation: The appellant challenged the National Commission's order awarding compensation of two lacs to the respondent for alleged deficiencies and losses. The respondent claimed compensation for various reasons, including deficiencies in the booth site possession and services provided by the appellant. The State Commission had directed the appellant to take several corrective actions and pay compensation to the respondent. On appeal, the National Commission negated some directions but upheld the compensation award, citing deficiencies in service. However, the Supreme Court found that the National Commission's factual basis for awarding compensation was incorrect. The Court concluded that no basis existed for awarding compensation and set aside the National Commission's decision on this matter. Issue 2: Alleged Deficiencies in Possession and Services: The respondent alleged several deficiencies, including discrepancies in the booth site's actual size compared to the advertised area, the presence of unauthorized bhatties affecting business, and the positioning of an STD/PCO booth. The State Commission accepted some claims and directed corrective actions by the appellant. On appeal, the National Commission disagreed with certain findings of deficiency but confirmed others. The Supreme Court determined that the side verandah was included in the total area allotted, and the PCO booth was constructed at a distance from the respondent's booth. The Court upheld the removal of bhatties as a deficiency but found no grounds for compensation. The Court directed the appellant to rework the outstanding amount payable by the respondent. Issue 3: Barred by Time - Limitation under Section 24-A: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant argued that the respondent's claim was time-barred as it was filed ten years after taking possession, eight years after the alleged damage began, and three years after it ceased. The Court noted that the respondent did not seek condonation of delay and that the two-year limitation period had expired before the complaint was admitted. The Court found the claim clearly barred by limitation, warranting the allowance of the appeal. Additionally, the National Commission's factual error regarding the removal of bhatties during the appeal further supported setting aside the compensation awarded. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the National Commission's decision to award compensation to the respondent. The Court found no legal basis for the compensation and determined that the claim was time-barred under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court provided detailed analysis and clarification on each issue raised, ensuring a comprehensive review of the judgment.
|
