Lucknow Development Authority v M.K. Gupta

Facts

• Allottees of plots and flats by the Lucknow Development Authority complained of inordinate delay in construction, defective construction, and failure to provide basic amenities. They filed complaints before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The development authority contested the forum's jurisdiction, arguing it was a statutory body not amenable to consumer proceedings.

Issue

1. Whether a statutory development authority providing housing is a "service provider" under the Consumer Protection Act, and whether allottees are "consumers" entitled to forum relief.

Held

• The Supreme Court held that housing construction activity by a development authority constitutes "service" under the Consumer Protection Act. Delay, defective construction, and non-provision of amenities amount to "deficiency in service." Allottees paying consideration are consumers. The Court directed compensation and emphasized that public authorities cannot claim sovereign immunity for commercial activities.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a statutory authority undertakes housing construction and allots plots or flats for consideration, it acts as a service provider under consumer protection law. Any delay, defect, or deficiency in that service is actionable before consumer forums. The statutory character of the authority provides no immunity from consumer jurisdiction.