Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which had dismissed the society’s consumer complaint as barred by limitation and as not maintainable. The dispute arose after the respondent-builder handed over possession of flats in 1997 without obtaining the occupancy certificate. As a consequence, the members of the appellant society were required to pay property tax at a rate 25% higher than the normal rate and water charges at a rate 50% higher than the regular charges. Earlier, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had directed the builder to obtain the occupancy certificate and awarded reimbursement towards extra water charges. Thereafter, the society instituted a fresh complaint before the NCDRC seeking reimbursement of excess taxes and charges paid because of the continued absence of the occupancy certificate.
The Supreme Court examined whether the complaint was barred by limitation and whether it was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Referring to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act and Section 22 of the Limitation Act, the Court discussed the principles governing continuing wrongs. It observed that Sections 3 and 6 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 impose continuing obligations upon a promoter to obtain the occupancy certificate and remain responsible for specified outgoings until the property is transferred. The Court held that the respondent’s continuing failure to obtain the occupancy certificate amounted to a continuing breach of its statutory and contractual obligations. Since the members of the society continued to incur higher municipal taxes and water charges as a direct consequence of that continuing breach, the complaint was based on a continuing wrong and was therefore not barred by limitation. The Court rejected the NCDRC’s view that the cause of action arose only when higher charges were first demanded by the municipal authorities.
