Q: Explain the tort in consumer Protection act with case law ?

Ans: Faqir Chand Gulati vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2008. 
The agreement with a builder for construction of a residential building on the land provided by the landowner was not to be treated as joint venture and in such cases, the landowner would be a 'consumer', although he was to be delivered one apartment or more.

In this case, the question was: Whether a land owner, who enters into an agreement with a builder, for construction of an Apartment Building and for sharing of the constructed area, is a 'consumer' entitled to maintain a complaint against the builder as a service- provider under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, if the contractor commits any breach either by failing to deliver owner's share of constructed area or by constructing the building contrary to specifications, or by failing to fulfill the obligations relating to completion certificate or amenities like water, electricity and drainage.

The State Commission held that the agreement between the parties, termed as a collaboration agreement,' was in the nature of a joint venture or agreement to collaborate; that the agreement contemplated 'sharing' of constructed area, that is the entire ground floor of the building by the landowner and the remaining area by the builder; that the agreement did not have any element of hiring any services; and that therefore, the appellant was not a 'consumer' and the builder was not a 'service-provider.'

The National Commission also agreed with the finding of state commission.

The honourable Supreme court held that if there is a breach by the land owner of his obligations, the builder will have to approach a civil court as the land owner is not providing any service to the builder but merely undertakes certain obligations towards the builder, breach of which would furnish a cause of action for specific performance and/or damages. It has also been stated therein that while the builder commits breach of his obligations, the owner has two options: he has the right to enforce specific performance and/or claim damages by approaching civil court or can approach consumer forum under the Act. Even if there is not a contract but the tort can make the party liable to be sued in civil court or consumer forum under consumer Protection Act,  1986.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria ?

Ans: Tort in Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria. Injury means the legal right has been violated.  In Injuria Sine Damno, there is an injury without damage.  Here, the legal right has been violated  but there is no damage and the essential condition in Tort is that the legal right must be violated. Thus, Injuria Sine Damno is to be considered in Tort.  Damnum Sine Injuria means there are damages but there is no injury. Here, there are damages but the legal right has not violated. The essential condition in tort is that the legal right must be violated but here there is no violation of legal right. Hence, Damnum Sine Injuria is not considered in tort.
Read more

Q: What is Re Polemis Case in tort of remoteness of damage?

Ans: In Re Polemis case, court rejected test of reasonable foresight and applied test of directness of tort of remoteness of damage.  Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Due to negligence of defendant servant, a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Ship was burnt totally. Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonable foresee. Test of directness was applied.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962) ?

Ans:  The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962). Lokumal i.e. Defendant no. 1, a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan was employed as a motor driver (on probation) of a government jeep car under the Collector of Udaipur. The car had been sent for repairs. On February 11, 1952, while driving the car back from the workshop after the repairs were done, defendant no. 1 knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath by the side of the public road. Jagdishlal was severely injured and his skull and backbone were fractured. Three days later, he died in the hospital.  The court held that the state will be liable to pay compensation for the Tort of his employee.
Read more