-
by sayum
01 October 2026 8:21 AM
Section 2, Sect. 24 A of Consumer protection Act – Section 22 of Limitation Act - Facts – appellant co-operative housing society - members of the appellant booked the flats in 1993 and were granted possession in 1997 - respondent failed to take steps to obtain the occupation certificate from the municipal authorities - In the absence of the occupation certificate - not eligible for electricity and water connections - appellant had to pay property tax at a rate 25% higher than the normal rate and water charges at a rate which was 50% higher than the normal charge - instituted a consumer complaint before the SCDRC Mumbai - respondent made an offer of a one-time settlement - appellant refused - SCDRC directed the respondent to obtain an occupancy certificate within four months - appellant sent a legal notice demanding the payment of outstanding dues- respondent failed to comply with the demand - filed a complaint before the NCDRC seeking payment of Rs.2,60,73,475/- as reimbursement of excess charges and tax paid - Dismissed by NCDRC on the ground - barred by limitation - not maintainable since not a consumer dispute .
Appeal against judgment to Apex Court – Held – Limitation - complaint to a consumer forum - filed within two years from the date of cause of action - continuing wrong occurs when a party continuously breaches an obligation imposed by law or agreement - continuous failure to obtain occupancy certificate amounts to a continuing wrong - respondent responsible for transferring the title to the flats to the society along with the occupancy certificate - failure - deficiency in service - appellant society within their rights as 'consumers' to pray for compensation arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate - direct the NCDRC to decide the merits of the dispute and dispose the complaint within a period of three.
D.D: - January 11, 2022
Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Versus Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.
