Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President;
Sh. B.L. Anand, Member; Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member
LT. COL. B.L. GUPTA AND ANOTHER—Complainant
versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARMY WELFARE
HOUSING ORGANISATION—Opposite Party
Complaint No. 116/92 & Complaint No. 175/92—Decided on 30.9.92

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : In Person.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Advocate.

A housing board registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and engaged in welfare activities for the benefit of its members is not a service provider within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - HOUSING BOARD - SECTION 2(1)(o) - HOUSING BOARD IS NOT A SERVICE PROVIDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT - COMPLAINT AGAINST HOUSING BOARD IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant, a retired Air Force officer, registered with the respondent Air Force Naval Housing Board for a type 6 house in Sector 21, Noida, and paid the required installments. In August/September 1991, the main slab of the house developed cracks and started leaking, causing extensive damage to the articles in the house. The complainant alleged that the initial construction of the flat was shoddy, sub-standard, and defective.
Finding of the Court:

The Commission held that the respondent Housing Board was not a service provider within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it was a welfare society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and its activities were only for the welfare and benefit of the serving and retired members of the Indian Navy and Indian Air Force on a self-financing basis.
Issues: Whether the respondent Housing Board was a service provider within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission relied on its earlier decision in Sh. P.K. Kuriakose & Others v. Air Force Naval Housing Board, where it had held that such a complaint against the Board was not maintainable. The Commission also noted that the flat was handed over to the complainant around May 1985 and the complaint was filed in May 1992, a gap of seven years, and as such, the complaint was stale and barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that it had no merit.

ORDER

Mr. B.L. Anand, Member—This complaint has been filed by Gr. Capt. D.W Chauhan a retired Air Force Officer residing at B-42, Jalvayu Vihar, Noida (UP). The respondent Air Force Naval Housing Board was a registered society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with their Registrar Office at Air Force Station, Race Cource, ”New Delhi 3. There is another identical complaint filed by Lt. Col. B.L. Gupta against Managing Director, Anny Welfare Housing Organisation, bearing complaint No. C-116/92. Since the arguments and issues raised against the respondents are similar in both the cases our findings and orders recorded in this complaint shall be applicable to the other case also.

2. The brief facts of this case are that on 24.5.80, the complainant registered himself with the respondents for a type 6 houses in Sector 21, Noida and that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,24,655/to the respondent in installments as demanded by the respondent from time to time and on 27.5.85 the complainant was handed over a letter of clearance and possession and thereafter the possession of the said house was given to him. That in August/Sept., 91 the main slab of the house B-42, Sector 21, Noida allotted to the complainant developed cracks and started leaking which caused extensive damage to the articles lying in the house. According to the complainant the inspection of the said roof revealed that the initial construction of the flat was shoddy, sub-standard, defective quality and in this respect he obtained a certificate from one Sh. Swami Dayal Mohinder Singh & Associates, Consulting Engineers, Padma Palace, Nehru Palace, New Delhi. This certificate has been annexed as Annexure ‘F’ with the complaint and according to this certificate the following defects/repairs are made. They have also mentioned that the building has been extensively damaged by Extraordinary heavy rain fall.

(i) Dismantling and relaying roof slab of the living room.

(ii) Repairs to damaged bricks work including breaking and replacing as required.

(iii) Repairs to damaged plastering work.

(iv) Dismantling damaged roofing of mud phuska and tiles, repairing and preparing roof surface and relaying mud phuska tiles etc., as to stands the same water proof.

(v) Repainting all plastered surfaces and/or work after scrapping off damaged surfaces.

(vi) Renewing all damaged wiring.

(vii) Replacement of damaged electric fixtures tiles, lights, fans, etc.

(viii) Repair replacement of loose fixtures.

3. The complainant sent representation dated 9.3.92 to the Chief of Naval Staff and again on 26.3.92 he approached the officers of the respondent and that in pursuance to the complaint the structural Engineer and architect of the respondent visited the premises and conducted inspection. The complainant, under the relief column, has submitted that due to the negligence’ and defective service on the part of the respondents he may be paid an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- by way of compensation for the loss and injuries caused to him.

4. The respondents, in their written statement, have mentioned that they are a welfare society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 and their Board was promoting suitable housing schemes for the retired as well as serving Air Force and Naval Personnel as a Welfare measure on ‘No Profit No Loss Basis’, on all India basis. That the Management and Affairs of the Board were entrusted to a Board of Management which comprises of very high ranking service officers in ex-officio capacity of the Indian Navy and Air Force. That the Board procures the land from Government agencies for group housing projects on self financing basis. The applicants/registrants are invited from the legible categories of Air Force and Naval Personnel and widows of such personnel to become registrants of particular scheme, if they so desire. The respondents do not undertake the Construction work themselves but they employed contractors on competitive terms b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

A housing board registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and engaged in welfare activities for the benefit of its members is not a service provider within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Cases Referred (2)