Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 69
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. R.K. AGRAWAL, CJ, DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, J
C.P. KUKREJA ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
LT. UDHAY BHAN SINGH & ORS. – 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
Contractors and architects are liable for quality and defects in construction even without direct privity of contract, per consumer protection principles.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(d)(i) and 24A - Deficiency in service - Complainants, serving and retired defence personnel, filed complaint against housing construction defects and unfair practices - State Commission ordered repairs and compensation of ₹25,000/- which parties subsequently contested in appeals. (Paras 1, 9, 12, 23)
(B) Contractual Obligations - Defect liability of architect and builder upheld, ruling that contractors must ensure proper execution and rectify defects during liability period; absence of privity of contract does not bar consumer claims. (Paras 2, 12, 22)
Facts of the case:
Complainants alleged poor construction quality, delays in possession, and unauthorized charges for parking; State Commission found construction defects and ordered remedies.
Findings of Court:
All opposite parties found guilty of deficiency in service related to construction defects; appeals against the State Commission’s order dismissed.
Issues: Whether claims were time-barred, and the responsibilities of the architect and builder in relation to defect rectification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the architects' and builders' responsibilities for quality work throughout the defect liability period and acknowledged continued complaints as sufficient for maintaining the consumer complaint.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of appeal details and factual background. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments related to the objections raised by opposite parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of the claims for damages and faults in construction. (Para 9 , 10 , 19) |
| 4. the court's observations regarding obligations and responsibilities under the agreements. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final order and conclusion dismissing appeals. (Para 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 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 o
