page 10 of part II
and prudent man would not do. In that case after considering the deficiency in issuance of encumbrance certificate the Court awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/-.
…..the High Court heavily relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 and other Judgments wherein it has been held that for deficiency in service in case of statutory duty also proceedings for the damages under the tort is maintainable against the statutory authorities.
And, finally, after considering the provisions of Section 2(1)(o) held that the main clause of the meaning of service is very wide. It applies to any service made available to potential users and no distinction can be drawn between the private service provider and the public service provider. The Court observed:
The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it is service or even facility.
