National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Gurdutt Pandey on 21 August, 2002
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 152 OF 2000 (From the order dated 13.9.99 in Appeal No.1558/SC/97 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh ) Ghaziabad Development Authority ... Petitioner Vs. Gurdutt Pandey .. Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT HONBL MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER. MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. Possession - Consumer dispute if it could be raised after possession is taken. Decision of the national Commission in the case of Sarthak Behuria & Anr. vs. The Orissa State Housing Board & Anr. - III (1993) CPJ 384 (NC) - Held not correctly devided in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Premji Bhai Parmar & Ors. etc. Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. - AIR 1980 SC 738 [ (1980) 2 SCC 129] - Held deficiency noticed in the construction after possession is taken consumer dispute can be raised. For the petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Advocate For the respondent : NEMO O R D E R
DATED THE 21st August 2002.
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT).
The petitioner -
Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) was the opposite party before the District Forum. It is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dismissing its appeal and affirming the order of the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant.
Complainant alleged that he had booked a house in Govindpuram Scheme developed by the GDA which scheme had started in 1988. Complainant was promised that he would be given possession of the house by 31.10.1990. Complainant deposited the entire amount as demanded along with increased cost of the lease rent. However, he was given possession of the house only in the year 1995. For this delay complainant approached the District Forum for relief by way of interest on the amount paid by him. GDA admitted delay in delivering the possession but took up the stand that it was beyond its control and it also advanced a plea that there was a stay by the Allahabad High Court in operation for the period from 24.4.91 to 16.1.93 . Considering the whole aspect of the matter District Forum allowed the complaint and directed that GDA shall pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amounts deposited by the complainant from 1.1.94 till the date of handing over the possession. GDA was also directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- .
As noted above, on appeal filed by the GDA against the order of the District Forum, it was dismissed with further cost of Rs.1000/-. Still feeling aggrieved, this petition has been filed by the GDA. The principal contention advanced by Mr. Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the GDA is that after having taken possession the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could not have been filed as at that time it could not be said that there was any consumer dispute existing between the complainant and GDA. It is difficult to appreciate this argument that rights of a consumer which had accrued to him would stand extinguished on his taking possession of the house.
We have been referred to a decision of the National Commission in the case of Sarthak Behuria & Anr. vs. The Orissa State Housing Board & Anr. - III(1993) CPJ 384 (NC) where relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Premji Bhai Parmar & Ors. etc. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. - AIR 1980 SC 738 [(1980) 2 SCC 129] it was observed that moreover after taking possession of the houses the complainants cannot be heard to say that there has been unreasonable delay in the construction of houses. We have examined the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Premji Bhai Parmar & Ors. etc. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and in our view, Supreme Court did not lay down any such principle. We, will therefore, confine the observations of this Commission in the case of Sarthak Behuria & Anr. vs. The Orissa State Housing Board & Anr. in the facts of that case.
In the case of Premji Bhai Parmar & Ors there was challenge to the collection of surcharge as a part of sale price of each flat from each of the petitioners as unauthorised and discriminatory treatment. It was a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Supreme Court observed that principal contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that the treatment meted out to them by the DDA was discriminatory inasmuch as no surcharge was levied on flats in MIG scheme constructed and allotted prior to November 1976 and after January 1977. MIG flats involved in the petitions were constructed and were available for allotment in November 1976 and the lots were drawn in January 1977. Supreme Court observed that it was no obligation on the part of the petitioners to buy the flats inasmuch as in the brochure issued by the DDA the price was clearly mentioned.
Petitioners, therefore, before the Supreme Court knew and were presumed to know the contents of the brochure and particularly the price payable. It was also observed that the price of the property was in the realm of contract between a seller and buyer. It was, in these circumstances, Supreme Court did not interfere. There were some other issues as to the maintainability of the petition with which we are not concerned. It would thus seen that Supreme Court at no point of time said that after possession is obtained a consumer dispute cannot be raised alleging deficiency in service.
We cannot accept the proposition as canvassed by GDA that after possession is taken no consumer dispute can be raised. It is only when possession is taken and a consumer starts living then he would know the deficiencies particularly those which are latent in the construction of the house. A civil suit will not be barred as the consumer as plaintiff can certainly file a suit if the construction of a house is faulty and claim damages. If we accept the argument of Mr. Kulshreshtha we will be making Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act ineffective. The right of the consumer to approach a Consumer Forum will be barred only under Section 24A of the Act which provides for limitation for initiating action. It is dangerous proposition to contend that right of consumer gets wiped out on his taking possession of the house.
It may be noted that in the case of Haryana Development Authority Vs. Darsh Kumar (Revision Petition No.1197/98) we have awarded interest @ 18% per annum.
We do not find that this is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
..J (D.P. WADHWA) PRESIDENT .....J (J.K. MEHRA) MEMBER .
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER .
(B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER