Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.24A(1) – Opposite party constructed apartments complex and offered them for sale in which purchasers were put in possession – complainant-purchasers of flats formed a registered association – On 15.11.2003, complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for taking over the maintenance of the apartment complex – In 2007, complainant filed a consumer complaint before the National Commission seeking reliefs from the opposite party – National Commission allowed the complaint partly – Aggrieved opposite party filed instant appeal raising objection as to limitation and challenging the reliefs granted by National Commission – Held: s.24A(1) of the Act of 1986 prescribes a period of limitation of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen for the admission of a complaint – The opposite party handed over the work of maintenance of the complex to the complainant under Agreement dated 15.11.2003 – There were specific obligations yet to be performed by the opposite party in relation to certain services – Under the agreement, different timelines were prescribed for different obligations – Certain works were continued up to the year 2005 – The affidavit in evidence filed by the opposite party and bills established that the cause of action continued at least till December, 2005 – Complaint before the National Commission was filed in February, 2007 – Therefore, National Commission was right in rejecting the objection relating to limitation – National commission had appointed a local Commissioner to inspect the facilities relatable to the reliefs claimed in the complaint – Commissioner examined each one of the items and found that they were not operational on date – If all the services had been handed over in fully functional state, the opposite party GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC.
should have taken an acknowledgment in writing from the complainant – Hence, the reliefs granted by the National commission in favour of the complainant warrant no interference – However, possession of the common amenities were handed over to complainant 18 years ago, it is impossible to compel opposite party to make such facilities fully operational at this distance of time – Accordingly, in the interests of justice the order of the National Commission modified in such a manner (i) that the complainant Association shall receive in full and final settlement, the deposit now lying in the Registry of this court, towards adequate compensation for the reliefs that they are held entitled to by the National Commission; and (ii) that the opposite party is directed inter alia to hand over possession of the club house to the complainant.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prescribes a period of limitation of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen for the admission of a complaint, by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission. In the case on hand, the opposite party handed over the work of maintenance of the complex to the complainant, under an Agreement dated 15.11.2003. As seen from the preamble to the Agreement, the Agreement covered common essential services such as generators, lifts, tubewell, water softening plant, electric substation, cabling, fire fighting system, pipelines, swimming pool, health and fitness centre, parking, clubhouse, water supply, drainage/sewerage system, horticulture, water tanks/pumps and lawns/parks. But different timelines were prescribed under the said Agreement for different obligations still remaining to be performed by the opposite party, towards the purchasers of flats. The last of such timeline was indicated to be 31.03.2004. [Paras 12,13][494-B-E]
2. There were specific obligations to be performed by the opposite party under the said Agreement, in relation to certain services. Therefore, the cause of action for the complaint continued even after the date of the Agreement namely 15.11.2003. The affidavit in evidence filed by the opposite party and the aforesaid bills establish that the cause of action continued at least till December, 2005. The complaint before the National Commission was filed in February, 2007. Therefore, the National Commission was right in rejecting the objection relating to limitation. [Paras 14, 15, 17][494-E-F; 495-C, E]
3. The reliefs granted by the National Consumer Commission related to water softening plant, firefighting, second health club equipment, second swimming pool and space for club house in Eden Tower were based on the Report of the local Commissioner. The Commissioner appointed by the National Commission was an architect. The architect examined each one of the items and not only found that they were not operational on date but also found, (i) that the equipment for the water softening plant was incomplete, ineffective and inadequate; (ii) that the firefighting equipments were not in operation due to incomplete commissioning of the system as a whole and that even the fire safety certificate dated 05.11.2001 noted down the same; (iii) that while the first health club in the basement of the Tower Blue Heaven was fully furnished and functional, the second health club was not adequately furnished though the civil works are complete;
(iv) that the second swimming pool was not complete and operational, as the filtration plant was non- functional and the pump was removed after installation and that even the change rooms and showers have not been provided for; and (v) that in so far as the club house in the basement of Eden tower is concerned it was kept under lock and key by the opposite party and found to have been used as a store for keeping various building materials. Hence, this Court was not convinced that the reliefs granted by National Commission in favour of the complainant warrant any interference. [Paras 19, 22][495-F-G; 496-D-G]
4. However, the possession of the common amenities were handed over by the opposite party to the complainant Association
18 years ago (under the Agreement dated 15.11.2003), it may not be possible at this distance of time to compel the opposite party to make those facilities/systems at relief clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, fully operational now. Therefore, interests of justice will be met if the order of the National Commission is modified in such a manner (i) that the complainant Association shall receive in full and final settlement, the deposit now lying in the Registry GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOC.
of this court, towards adequate compensation for the reliefs that they are held entitled to by the National Commission; and (ii) that the opposite party is directed to remove all building material stored in the club house in the basement of Tower Eden and hand over possession of the club house to the complainant. [Paras 31, 32][498-E-H]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.