SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Honble Mr. Justices. C. Mohapatra,
President; Dr. R.N. Panigrahi & Smt J. Patnaik, Members
ORISSA STATE HOUSING BOARD—Complainant
versus
SACHITANANDA RATH & OTHERS—Opp. Parties
C.D. Appeal Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 of 1992— Decided on 1.5.1993

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : Mr. G.S. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel.
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. K.N. Jena, Advocate.

Providing houses by the Housing Board is a service and the purchasers of such houses are consumers. Any deficiency in service by the Housing Board can be redressed under the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - HOUSING BOARD - SERVICE - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - DELAY IN DELIVERY OF HOUSE - DEVIATION FROM PLAN - DEFECT IN CONSTRUCTION - COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

Complainants applied for allotment of a house under the Balia Panda Housing Scheme of the appellant. After taking delivery of the house, they found that the house had not been constructed in accordance with the plan, there were defects in construction, facilities were not provided, and the rate of the house was arbitrarily enhanced. They filed complaints in the District Forum alleging deficiency in service.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that providing houses by the Housing Board is a service and that the complainants are consumers. It found that there was deficiency in service on account of negligence, delay in delivery of the house, deviation from the plan, and defect in construction.

Issues: 1. Whether providing houses by the Housing Board is a service? 2. Whether the complainants are consumers? 3. Whether there was deficiency in service on account of negligence, delay in delivery of the house, deviation from the plan, and defect in construction?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Providing houses by the Housing Board is a service as it includes any service and is not a simple case of construction and sale of a house. 2. The complainants are consumers as they have purchased a house from the Housing Board. 3. There was deficiency in service on account of negligence, delay in delivery of the house, deviation from the plan, and defect in construction.

Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed. The court directed the Housing Board to appoint a team of Engineers to inspect the houses, get grievances from the complainants and other owners, and intimate them what defects in the house can be rectified by them and the period that would be taken for rectification of same. If no action is taken within three months, the direction of the District Forum shall be complied with.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President — opposite-party is appellant in all these seven appeals.

2. Case of complainants is that each of them applied for allotment of a house under Balia Panda Housing Scheme of the appellant. After taking delivery of house, it was found by them that the house had not been constructed in accordance with the plan under which advertisement-inviting applications was issued. Construction of house was also defective. Facilities appertaining for enjoyment of the house were not provided. Rate of the house was arbitrarily enhanced. Accordingly, complaints were filed in the District Forum. Case of opposite-party is that there was delay in construction which was unavoidable. On account of escalation of price, cost was increased. There was no defect in construction or deviation in the plan and all actions have been taken with approval of the Board. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service.

3. Complainants got the houses verified by a retired Chief Engineer who gave a report relating to the defect in construction of the houses. Opposite-party examined an Engineer before the District Forum who stated that there is no defect in the construction. Considering the materials as produced before the District Forum, it held that complainants are entitled to the direction to be given and has, therefore, given the direction. This is grievance of appellant.

4. 4.One of the grounds taken by appellant is that complainant (in each of the cases) is not a consumer and accordingly, allegation of deficiency in service at the instance of complainant is not maintainable.

5. Consumer is a person who purchases goods or hires services. House is not a goods and accordingly purchaser of the house which is an immovable property is not a consumer under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act. It is to be examined, whether providing house by opposite-party is a service.

6. Definition of 'service' is in wide terms. It includes any service. When persons are not able to have their own roof over their heads, a statutory body with the idea of providing accommodation to such persons rendering service. It is not a simple case of construction and sale of a house which is immovable property. Almost all the redressal agencies in this Republic have come to the conclusion that providing houses by Housing Board is a service. This Commission in the decision report in 2 (1992) CPR 206 (Kumari Ranjan Dutt v. Orissa Housing Board) has observed as follows:

"Providing accommodation on payment, be it permanent or temporary, is a service rendered. In case, there is shortfall in the contract for accommodation creating difficulty in use there would be deficiency in service. Unreasonable delay in providing the accommodation, refusal to handover possession by calling upon to pay increased consideration amount for providing the accommodation, defect in the construction of the accommodation affecting the use or non-furnishing of materials promised to be provided for, non-availability of surrounding facilities as promised for better enjoyment of accommodation, are, however, deficiencies in services which may bring a person, within the meaning of consumer to make opposite-party liable under the Act on facts and circumstances of a case. This distinction has to be kept in mind."

Therefore, each of the complainants is a consumer. In the said paragraph it has been indicated how there is deficiency in service by the Board. Complainant is to prove this deficiency in service forgetting a direction to the opposite-party for compensation.

7. As regards the delay in delivery of the house, appellant has explained that the delivery was delayed on account of absence of final costing as explained in the reply statement. There was severe restriction of goods carrying trucks in Swargadwar Road and in the sea beach during that period. There was complete prohibition of movement of goods carrying trucks in various festival days. There was acute shortage of supply of K.V. Br







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top