Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 67
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. AGRAWAL, President, S.M. KANTIKAR, Member
C.P. KUKREJA ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 424 OF 2011 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2011 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Advocate, Ms. Swati Bharadwaj, Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Gaur, Advocate, Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Advocate, Mr. Bhupinder Kumar, AM(L), Grp. Capt. K.S. Bhati, Advocate
Liability for construction defects persists despite the expiration of the defect liability period; service providers remain accountable for quality even without a direct contractual relationship.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(d), 7 and 24A - Deficiency in service - Appeals against order for repairs and compensation for defects in construction - State Commission found all respondents guilty of deficiency in service - Respondents ordered to carry out repairs and compensation awarded. (Paras 12-26)
(B) Defect Liability Period - The responsibility for defects exists even after the expiration of the defect liability period if issues persist post-remedy attempts. (Paras 22-26)
Facts of the case:
The appellants provided housing units to defense personnel through a self-financed scheme, with allegations of extensive construction defects, delayed possession, and improper charges including for parking spaces. The State Commission ordered repairs and compensation for the affected unit owners.
Findings of Court:
The of the State Commission held all Opposite Parties responsible for providing defective construction, ordering necessary repairs and monetary compensation.
Issues: Whether the appellants are liable for defects in construction and failure to hand over possession in time, despite delay objections by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that absence of privity of contract does not absolve service providers of liability. The defect liability extends beyond the initial period if defects remain unresolved.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
ORDER
1. Challenge in these First Appeals filed by the Opposite Party No.2, C.P. Kukreja Associates (P) Ltd., Opposite Party No.3, Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. and Opposite Party No.1, The Director General, Air Force Navel Housing Board respectively, is to the Order dated 28.07.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, “the State Commission”) in Complaint Case No.107 of 2005. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission while partly allowing the Complaint, has directed the Opposite Parties to carry out repairs/renovation of the Gulab Building in Jalvayu Enclave, Plot No.20, Sector-20, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai and to pay ₹25,000/- to each of the Complainants towards compensation and costs of ₹50,000/-.
2. Since the facts and circumstances as well as the impugned order giving rise to these First Appeals are the same, we are proceeding to dispose of these Appeals with this common order.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the Consumer Complaint before the State Commission, are that the Complainants, who were either serving or retired defence service personnel, were offered dwelling units under “Self Finance Housing Scheme” in May, 1994 in the proposed building known as “Gulab Building” to be developed near a proposed Railway Station in Khargar, Navi Mumbai as per the terms & conditions enumerated in 097 IG message originated by Naval Headquarters under the instructions of Air Force Naval Housing Board (for short, “the Housing Board”). The Housing Board was constituted in the year 1979 with the objective to plan, build and allot dwelling units on ‘No profit, No Loss Basis’ to Air Force and Naval Personnel from all over India. Under the scheme, two Types of Flats were offered, Type 1 for Officers with approximate total area of 900 Sq. Ft. with initial estimated cost of ₹7.68 lakh and Type 2 for Sailor and Airmen with approximate area of 600 Sq. Ft. with initial estimated cost of ₹5.12 lakh. The 33 Complainants joined the Scheme and started paying instalments. The Housing Board appointed Opposite Party No.2, M/s. C.P. Kukreja Associates (P) Ltd as Architect (hereinafter referred to as the “Architect”) and the Opposite Party No.3, M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the “Builder”) for construction of the “Gulab Building”. Subsequently, in August, 1995, the Housing Board, vide 175 IG Message, raised the area of the Type 1 and Type 2 Flats to 935 Sq. Ft. and 685 Sq. Ft. and the corresponding cost was also raised to ₹8.2 lakh and ₹5.8 lakh respectively. Vide Allotment Letter dated 1.11.1996, the cost of Type 2 Flats was further enhanced to ₹6.8 lakh. The area of Type 1 & 2 Flats was again increased to 1005 Sq. Ft and 710 Sq. Ft. and as a result the cost of both the Flats was also increased to ₹10.05 lakh and ₹7.6 lakh respectively. By another letter, dated 17.03.1998, the Housing Board informed the Complainants that the Carpet Area of the Type 2 Flats including the Balcony Area, would be 554 Sq. Ft. By letter dated 28.01.1998, the Housing Board also imposed penalty for withdrawal from the Scheme. Further, vide its letter dated 19.02.1999, the Housing Board made it compulsory for all the allottees to pay ₹32,000/-, ₹52,000/- and ₹90,000/- for Scooter Parking Space, Open Car Parking Space and Car Parking Space respectively, though originally the requirement for Parking Space was not made compulsory, but optional. The Complainants pointed out to the Housing Board that they cannot charge any amount for Parking Space in view of the Judgement of the High Court of Maharasthra and the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as MOFA, 1963). The possession of the Dwelling Units was promised to the Complainants to be handed over in October, 1998, which was subsequently informed to commence from 06.12.1999. Vide letter dated 15.02.2000, the Housing Board admitted that basic amenities were not yet available at the site. The Comp
