Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 68
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. R.K. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT, DR. 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 Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha
For Respondents:Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Advocate, Ms. Swati Bharadwaj, Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Gaur, Advocate, Mr. Bhupinder Kumar, AM(L), Grp. Capt. K.S. Bhati, Advocate
The absence of privity of contract does not preclude consumers from claiming against service providers for deficiencies, reinforcing consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d)(i) - Deficiency in service - Complainants, being service personnel, filed a complaint concerning defects in housing units under the ‘Self Finance Housing Scheme’ resulting in water leakage and structural issues - Opposite parties directed to carry out repairs and awarded compensation of ₹25,000/- to each complainant. (Paras 1-26)
(B) Limitation - Complaint regarding defects was adjudged maintainable regardless of the expiry of defect liability period due to continuing cause of action established through persistent complaints. (Paras 17, 26)
Facts of the case:
Complainants alleged defective construction of dwellings which were delayed in possession and flawed in structure, leading to physical hardship.
Issues: Whether the complaint was time-barred; privity of contract; scope of liability of the Opposite Parties.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the State Commission's finding of deficiency in service by all parties involved with a ruling of continuing liability.
Ratio Decidendi: Absence of privity of contract does not bar consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act and all parties were tasked with ensuring quality construction and rectifying defects.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeals and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of the complainants and the housing scheme. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. opposing parties' preliminary objections and stance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's analysis of claims and objections. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. discussions on liability and consumer protection principles. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's examination of defects and repair obligations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. final determination on the liability of parties. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. conclusion on the appeals and dismissal of claims. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
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 n
