In the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta, the Supreme Court made it clear that “any defect in construction activity would be denial of comfort and service to a consumer. When possession of property is not delivered within the stipulated period, the delay so caused is denial of service”. Accordingly, the forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have compensated many a consumer for the hardship or harassment undergone on account of defects in construction or delay in handing over possession of a plot or a house by housing bodies and builders. In three relatively recent cases, the apex consumer court has reiterated further, these basic principles.
In the case of Chief Administrator, PUDA vs Shabnam Virk, for example, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission defined “delay”. It held that a period of two to two-and-a half-years would be considered a reasonable time for constructing a house and handing over possession to the consumer. Any delay beyond this period would constitute deficiency in service and the builder or the land development authority responsible for such delay would be held liable for consequent damages. In this case, the apex consumer court agreed with the view of the lower consumer courts that PUDA was not justified in hiking the cost of the house and therefore it should charge the consumer Rs 6.3 lakh, the original price, and not the escalated price of Rs 7.44 lakh. However, as far as the time taken for handing over possession of the house was concerned, the Commission was of the view that there was no deficiency in service and therefore grant of interest on the amount was unnecessary (RP NO 1206 of 2002, decided on August 26, 2003).
Earlier in the cases of K. Saxena vs Ghaziabad Development Authority and the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority vs R.K.Ajbani, the apex consumer court had held that a consumer who is given an alternate site because of some problem with the original allotment, cannot be asked to pay a higher price for the new plot (or house). Now in the case of GDA vs Krishna Kumarji, the National Commission emphasised this once again. When a consumer is promised a plot of land and has paid the full price towards it within the time schedule fixed for payment, he or she is entitled to the possession of the plot. Where, for any reason, this cannot be done and the consumer is being given an alternate plot, the question of asking the him/ her for additional money towards the cost of the new plot does not arise, the Commission said (RP No 1006 of 2000, decided on December 3, 2003).
In the third case, Rajasthan Housing Board vs Shail Bhargava, the apex consumer court once again reiterated that delay in handing over possession of a plot or a house or a flat constituted deficiency in service and that the consumer would be entitled to compensation (RP NO 2168 of 2003, decided on November 17, 2003).
These orders once again uphold the right of the consumer to a fair deal vis-a-vis housing construction companies and land development authorities.
