Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 26947
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V. P. Patel, President
CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL LTD. – Appellant
Versus
M/S. AKSHAR ASSOCIATES – Respondent
Complaint NO.164/2001|Complaint NO. 165/2001|Complaint NO. 166/2001|Complaint NO. 167/2001|Complaint NO. 197/2001|Complaint NO. 198/2001|CC/164/2001
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukesh Parikh, S. P. Sen
For the Respondents: Milan K. Dudhiya, Mehul S. Shah, V. M. Pancholi
For latent structural defects in immovable property not discoverable by ordinary care, the limitation period commences from the date the damage manifests. Joint complaints are maintainable where consumers share common interests and cause of action, and police investigation reports are admissible as evidence in consumer disputes.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(b), 12(1), 17 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 55(1)(a) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 22 and 23 - Deficiency in service regarding construction - Liability of builders and engineers for collapsed building - Joint complaint maintainability - Pecuniary jurisdiction - Admissibility of police investigation records in civil proceedings. (Paras 16, 17, 18-21, 22)
(B) Appeals - Remand - Power of State Commission to decide on merit after remand by National Commission - Where service was incomplete at the initial stage, matter is restored for fresh adjudication on merits. (Para 2)
(C) Limitation - Continuing Tort - The limitation for a claim arising from a structural defect in immovable property, which was not discoverable by ordinary care, commences from the date the specific injury or damage actually results. (Paras 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The complainants, who purchased flats in a residential complex, filed complaints alleging that their building collapsed during an earthquake due to defective design, use of substandard materials, and negligence by the builder, architect, and structural engineer. The defense argued that the complaints were barred by limitation, lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, were not maintainable without permission for representative action, and that the damage resulted from an 'act of God'.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the complaints were maintainable as joint complaints, even without section 12(1)(c) permission, given the proximity of interests. It affirmed that the cause of action for a latent structural defect in immovable property accrues upon the occurrence of the damage. The court also held that investigative documents from criminal proceedings are admissible in consumer forums under the Indian Evidence Act to prove the deficiency in service.
Issues: Whether the complaint is barred by limitation; whether the commission has pecuniary jurisdiction; whether a joint complaint is maintainable without representative action permission; and whether police investigation records are admissible as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a construction is defective due to hidden faults not discoverable by ordinary care, the period of limitation commences from the date of the actual collapse or incident. Furthermore, joint complaints by a few consumers having the same cause of action are valid under the Act, and police-collected evidence is admissible in civil/consumer proceedings when not barred by specific provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Result: Complaints allowed; respondents held jointly and severally liable for compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and consolidation of consumer complaints regarding building collapse. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. opponents argue maintainability, privity of contract, and absence of liability due to 'act of god'. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. joint complaint maintainability and pecuniary jurisdiction under consumer protection act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. limitation period for latent construction defects surfacing after natural calamity. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. admissibility of police investigation reports and expert evidence to prove construction negligence. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. determination of liability and computation of net compensation after deducting government relief. (Para 31 , 32 , 34) |
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President
APPERANCE (CC No. 164/2001 to 167/2001):
Complainant- Mr. Mukesh Parikh, representatives
Opponent no. 1 - Mr. Milan K. Dudhiya, ld. advocate and
Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah
Opponent no. 2- deleted
Opponent no. 3 and 4- Mr. V. M. Pancholi, ld. advocate
(CC No. 197/2001 & 198/2001):
Complainant- Mr. S. P. Sen, ld. Advocate
Opponent no. 1 and 2- Mr. Milan K. Dudhiya, ld. advocate and
Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah
Opponent no. 3 and 5- Mr. V. M. Pancholi, ld. advocate
Opponent no. 4- deleted
1. In all above stated complaints, the complainants are sufferers of the incident taken place on 26.1.2001 due to earthquake with the result that apartments were collapsed with causalities and damage. The cause of action arises in all the complaints are the same. Opponents in all the complaints are common. Most of the evidence produced on record in all the complaints is almost similar. This Commission had disposed of all these complaints by common judgment dated 11.5.2012. Thereafter, the respondents had preferred the appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble National Commission has also disposed of the appeals arising out of the said complaints by common judgment. With the consent of the parties of the complainants these complaints are disposed by common judgment.
2. Complainants have filed the complaints in the year of 2001. Earlier the matter was partly allowed by this Commission vide order dated 11.5.2012. Opponents being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of this Commission preferred first appeals before the Hon’ble National Commission as under:
| Sr. | Consumer Complaint No. | FA No. filed by opponent Ravjibhai H. Patel | FA No. filed by opponent Pankajbhai G. Modi | FA No. filed by opponent Jagdish Associates |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 164/2001 | 478/2012 | 632/2012 | 755/2013 |
| 2. | 165/2001 | 479/2012 | 633/2012 | 756/2013 |
| 3. | 166/2001 | 480/2012 | 634/2012 | 757/2013 |
| 4. | 167/2001 | 481/2012 | 635/2012 | 758/2013 |
| 5. | 197/2001 | 482/2012 | 636/2012 | 759/2013 |
| 6. | 198/2001 | 483/2012 | 637/2012 | 760/2013 |
Hon’ble National Commission by its common order dated 6.9.2017 passed in above mentioned appeals remanded back the matters to this State Commission for fresh hearing, para 3 and 7 are relevant which reads as under:
“3. We may note at this juncture itself that the Architect, namely Shekhar Associates, Opposite Party No. 2 in all the Complaints was directed to be deleted from the array of parties’ name as the Complainants had failed to take appropriate steps to have him served with the notice in the Complaint.
7. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties in the light of the afore stated factual scenario, as also the fact that the State Commission has not recorded its satisfaction to the effect that the said Opposite Party had been served, either by actual service or by drawing presumption that the notices having been issued by Registered AD post at Appellant’s last known address, we are of the opinion that the said Opposite Party had not been properly served with the notice in the Complaints. In that view of the matter the common order impugned in these Appeals deserves to be set aside in totality on the said short ground alone and as a necessary consequence the Appeals by the other two Op
