SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Civil Appeals Nos. 42 and 43 of 2000. D/d. 23.01.2001.

Dalbir Kaur Dhillon - Appellant

Versus

Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority - Respondent

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 23, 19 and 21(b) - Computation of Damages - Non-speaking order - Remittal - National Commission without discussing all material on record with reference to contentions raised before it reduced the compensation from 9 lakhs to 4 lakhs and also deleted compensation given on account of harassment without assigning any reasons - Order of commission set aside - Matter remanded back to commission for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

[Para 4]

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - Dr Dalbir Kaur Dhillon who is the appellant in one of these appeals and the respondent in another matter made an application for allotment of a plot in Phase II, Patiala to the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') which is the respondent in one matter and the appellant in the other.

2. A plot of land bearing No. 4170-C measuring about 507.50 sq yards under certain terms and conditions by an order made on 25-2-1980 was given. While Dr Dhillon claims that she was given possession of the land in June 1998 the Authority contends that such possession was offered as early as 1983. She filed certain proceedings before the authorities and subsequently approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission'), Punjab claiming various reliefs. The State Commission formulated three questions for consideration: (i) whether there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Authority in delaying delivery of actual possession to Mrs Dhillon; (ii) whether Dr Dhillon suffered losses on account of negligent act on the part of the Authority in the matter of delivery of possession; and (iii) with regard to claim of compensation payable, if any.

3. The State Commission answered all these questions in favour of Dr Dhillon and directed payment of a compensation of Rs 9 lakhs along with certain other amounts by way of interest etc. In the first appeal filed by the Authority before the Commission all findings were under challenge and in addition other grounds were raised. The Commission noted that the arguments were heard at length but disposed of the matter by a short cryptic order stating as follows:

"Having regard to facts of the case, in our opinion the State Commission has rightly awarded the interest at 18% from the date of last instalment paid. Therefore, that part of the order is sustained. So far as compensation of Rs 9.00 lakhs is concerned, we are of the view that it is on the higher side. We reduce the compensation to Rs 4.00 lakhs. The amount of compensation of Rs 40,000 on account of harassment is deleted. The stay application and the appeal are both disposed of as above. The order is to be carried out within two months from today."

4. The complaint now made is that the appeal filed by the Authority should have been considered on all questions raised before the State Commission and it could not have drawn any inference without discussing all the material on record with reference to the contentions raised before it. Moreover, when a question relating to computation of damages arises necessarily a due assessment will have to be made with reference to the material on record. That exercise also was not done. The Authority is therefore aggrieved by this order of the National Commission. Dr Dhillon is also aggrieved by the order made by the National Commission in slashing down the damages paid to her from Rs 9 lakhs to 4 lakhs without setting out any reason except to say that in their point of view a compensation of Rs 4 lakhs would be sufficient. In the circumstances we set aside the order made by the National Commission and remit the matter back to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law, in particular, we may point out that each of the questions raised before the National Commission and grounds urged in support of appeal ought to be considered in accordance with the evidence on record and draw a conclusion. We hope that the National Commission will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from today.

5. The appeals are allowed accordingly.

6. No costs.

Appeals allowed.