DEFICIENCY
Definition: Section 2 (1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines 'Deficiency'
Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;
Case Law:
- Union Bank of India Vs. Seppo Rally[1]: The Bank gave unconditional bank guarantee to a foreign company. Payment was delayed because of time taken by the R.B.I to permit remittance in foreign currency and also due to delay caused by foreign banker of complainant in replying to query raised by Bank. Supreme Court held that there was no deficiency in service by the Bank.
- Om Prakash V. Asst. Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.[2]: Consumer booked a tractor after depositing certain amount as advance. Trader intentionally postponed delivery of tractor although consumer was throught ready to take delivery according to list of booking. Amending Act (58 of 1991) introducing unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice 'in definition of unfair trade practice' come into force after supply of tractor. Conduct and practice adopted by dealer does not fall under unfair trade practice. However, delayed supply of tractor shall amount to 'deficiency in service by trader.
- Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel and others[3]: It was held by Supreme Court that a homeopathic practitioner having practiced allopathy without being qualified in the system, was guilty of negligence and that he was liable to compensate the deceased, who died due to such deficiency in service.
- M/s. Spring Meadowa Hopspital & others vs. Harjol Ahulwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia and another[4]: In this case it was held that by Supreme Court that as per Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) a consumer would mean a person who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of services.
- Jeweler's Narandas and sons Vs. Oriental Insurance Consumer. Ltd[5]: The appellants were manufactures and exporter of jewelry. The appellants insured a consignment of gold with the respondent Insurance Company. The delivery of the fold was to be made to a consignee in Kuwait. Due to invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi force the consignment was lost/destroyed/stolen from the strong room at the Kuwait Airport. The appellants claimed the insured amount from the Insurance Company. But despite repeated requests by the appellants the claim was not honored. The appellants filed a petition before the National Commission. By a detailed judgment the commission came to the Insurance Company in rendering service to the appellants. The Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by the National Commission.
[1] AIR (2000) SC 62
[2] (1994) 3 SCC 504
[3] (1996) II CPJ (SC) 1
[4] AIR 1998 SC 1801
[5] (1995) SCC 406
