Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2198
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Raj Shekhar Attri, President, Rajesh Kumar Arya, Member
Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Surinder Jit Singh – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/113/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Arjun Sharma
For the Respondents: Sh. Varun Bhardwaj
The failure to obtain an occupation certificate constitutes a continuing deficiency in service providing a fresh cause of action daily, and a legal heir or beneficiary of an allottee qualifies as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(7) - Consumer dispute - Refund of deposit - Continuing cause of action - Non-receipt of occupation certificate by developer constitutes a continuous breach of obligation, extending limitation period for filing complaint - Legal heir/beneficiary of original allottee qualifies as a consumer under the Act - Consumer forums have the discretion to grant appropriate relief, including refund of deposit, even if not specifically prayed for, provided it serves the interest of justice. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
The complainants/respondents were legal heirs of an original allottee who had paid a substantial amount for a residential unit. Following the death of the original allottee and subsequent cancellation of the unit by the developers/appellants, the complainants filed a claim for deficiency in service. The District Commission ordered a refund of the deposited amount along with interest and compensation. The developers challenged this, arguing the complaint was time-barred and that the complainants were not consumers.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the absence of a valid occupation certificate by the developer creates a continuing cause of action for the complainants, thereby rejecting the limitation plea. It further confirmed the legal heir's status as a 'consumer' and maintained the award of refund, citing the mandate of consumer forums to grant fair and reasonable relief.
Issues: Whether the non-receipt of the occupation certificate constitutes a continuing cause of action, and whether a legal heir qualifies as a consumer under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The failure to obtain a compulsory occupation certificate is a continuous deficiency in service. Furthermore, the definition of a consumer is broad enough to include beneficiaries of original contracts, and forum discretion permits granting comprehensive relief to ensure justice.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
The instant appeal has been filed by the opposite parties (appellants herein) impugning order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (referred to as the 'District Commission'), vide which, consumer complaint No.75 of 2024, filed by the complainants (respondents herein), has been allowed in the following manner:-
“11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-
i) to pay 26,26,142/ to the complainants alongwith interest @9% per annum (simple) from the respective date of deposit till onwards
ii) to pay 1,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
iii) to pay 10,000/ to the complainants as costs of litigation.
12. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, expenses, over and above payment of litigation expenses.”
2] In brief, the case of the respondents/complainants before the District Commission was that the father of complainant No.1 (Surjinder Jit Singh), namely, Late Ram Parkash Singh and complainant No.2 (Simranjit Kaur) applied for a unit in the project of the opposite parties "The Lake" situated at Omaxe New Chandigarh, Mullanpur, SAS Nagar, Punjab which was to be developed by Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. in the year 2014 for the personal use and for the use of their family. The father of complainant No.1 and complainant No.2 paid 5,00,000/- as booking amount on 31.5.2014 and accordingly, unit No.TLC/Emerald-C/Seventh/703 was allotted to them. However, despite payment of a total amount of 26,26,142/-, the opposite parties failed to hand over possession of the unit in question. Thereafter, father of complainant No.1 died on 13.7.2020 due to ill health and prior to his death, he bequeathed his share in the allotted unit in favour of both the complainants No.1 and 2. To the utter shock of the complainants, they came to know that the opposite parties have cancelled the allotment in the year 2017 without intimating to the allottee despite the fact that they have received a huge amount of 26,26,142/- from the complainants. The complainants alleged the acts of the opposite parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
3] The appellants/Opposite Parties contested the allegations made in the complaint by filing their reply before the District Commission, wherein while admitting the factual matrix of the case, they stated that the complaint is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose to the complainant in the year 2017, when the allotment of unit in question was cancelled but the complainants first approached the District Commission, Mohali in the year 2021 after a delay of more than 3 years and withdrawn the said complaint and then approached the District Commission at Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainants did not come with clean hands as they concealed the fact regarding the cancellation of the unit before the District Commission, Mohali whereas in the instant complaint, they have taken stand that they came to know about the cancellation on 8th October 2020. It was further stated that the allottees have opted for construction link plan and the opposite parties vide various demand letters requested the allottees to pay the due amount. Finally the allottees paid cheque dated 19.2.2025 for 12,60,374/- which was returned back by the Bank. It was further stated that thereafter the opposite parties vide various communications requested the allottees to pay the due amount to avoid cancellation of the unit in question but they
