Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF ORISSA versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC AND ANR.

Decided
18 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 527 · 1996 INSC 405
Also cited as
  • (1996) 8 SCC 655 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal is treated as special leave petitioner under Article 136 of the Constitution.

p. 527, margin G

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 528, margin A

This appeal arises from the order dated February 17, 1995 in FA No. 510 of 1992 of the National Consumer and Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The respondent-Haribandhu Setha filed a claim before the State Commission, Orissa under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the 'Act') for damages. The State Commission awarded damages against the first respondent-UC. In appeal, the appellant was impleaded as partyrespondent and the National Forum awarded damages against the State in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) and directed to pay compensation within a period of three months. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

p. 528, margin A

The only question is : whether the appellant is liable to pay compen~ sation to Haribandhu Setha under the Act and whether the claim 1s maintainable. Section 2(l)(o) of the Act defines 'services' as under :

p. 528, margin C

"'services' means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board of lading or both housing construction entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other informations; but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service."

p. 528, margin D

(emphasis supplied)

p. 528, margin E

A reading of the definition would indicate that the services contemplated thereunder alone are the services within the meaning of the Act except excluded services mentioned thereunder. The excluded services are nservice free of charge or under a contract of personal service". The concept of contract of personal service was considered in a recent judgment of this Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors., (1995] 6 SCC 651. This Court had held therein that the expression "personal service" has a well known legal connotation and has been construed in the context of the right to seek enforcement of such a contract under the Specific Relief Act. For that purpose, a contract of personal service has been held to ccver a civil servant, the managing agents of a company and a professor in the University. There can be a contract of personal service

p. 528, margin F

STATEv. DIVISIONAL MANAGER 529 if there is relationship of master and servant between a doctor and the availing of his services and in that event the services rendered by the doctor to his employer would be excluded from the purview of the expression under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act by virtue of the exclusionary clause in the said definition. The other excluded service is service rendered free of charge.

p. 529

It is not in dispute that the respondent was a Government servant and, therefore, he is bound by the service conditions and the State was rendering services free of charge to the contesting respondent. Under those circumstances, the Government servant has been excluded from the purview of the Act to claim any damages against the State under the Act. Therefore, if any claim arises for the contesting respondent, it would be open to him to claim, in any other forum, but not under the Act. If the claim is barred by limitation, time taken during the entire proceedings shall stand excluded.

p. 529, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. T.N.A. appeal ~llowed.

p. 529, margin D