Summary
A housing society sought compensation for higher municipal taxes and water charges resulting from its developer’s failure to obtain an occupancy certificate. The Court held that the unfulfilled statutory and contractual obligation constituted a continuing wrong, so the consumer complaint was not time-barred. The developer’s failure was a deficiency in housing services even though municipal authorities supplied water and levied taxes. The complaint was restored for the NCDRC to decide its merits within three months; the Court did not quantify the compensation payable.
Issues
- Whether persistent failure to obtain an occupancy certificate constituted a continuing wrong defeating the limitation objection.
- Whether compensation for consequential higher municipal charges was maintainable as a consumer claim against the developer.
Provisions considered
- Section 22, Limitation Act, 1963A continuing breach of an enduring obligation generates a fresh limitation period while the breach persists, unlike merely continuing effects of a completed wrong. (¶ 12-19)
- Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) and 24A, Consumer Protection Act, 1986The members could seek compensation for deficient housing services; the continuing failure to obtain the certificate meant the complaint was not barred by the two-year limitation. (¶¶ 11, 18-23)
- Sections 3 and 6, Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963The promoter’s statutory responsibilities, alongside the sale agreements, supported the continuing obligation to obtain the occupancy certificate and address consequential outgoings. (¶ 15-18)
Held
- A continuing wrong requires breach of a duty that continues to subsist; continuing damage from a completed wrong alone is insufficient. Here the developer’s failure to obtain the occupancy certificate was an enduring breach, with repeated higher municipal demands resulting from it. The complaint was therefore within limitation. (¶ 12-19)
- The society’s pursuit of execution of the earlier order directing procurement of the certificate did not preclude compensation for the consequences of the continuing default. Absence of a duplicate prayer for the certificate in the compensation complaint did not make it time-barred. (¶ 18-19)
- The developer’s failure to obtain the certificate was a deficiency in the services owed to flat purchasers. Their claim concerned consequences of that deficiency, not whether the developer itself supplied municipal water or electricity. They were entitled as consumers to seek compensation for the consequential higher charges. (¶ 20-22)
- The complaint was maintainable, but the NCDRC was to decide the merits in light of these findings within three months. No particular sum was awarded by the Supreme Court. (¶ 23-24)
Result
Appeal allowed; NCDRC dismissal set aside, complaint held maintainable and restored for decision on merits within three months.