The Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) constructed houses and sold them to members of the public. Gurdutt Pandey was an Applicant for one of the houses. Gurdutt’s dream was to have his own house by October 1990. He had every right to nurse such a dream because the scheme promised that possession of the house would be handed over by October 31, 1990. He deposited the entire amount as demanded along with increased cost of the lease rent to the GDA.
Thereafter came the problem, there was no evidence of the house in sight. Days became months and then years. Finally, after a great degree of mental distress, Gurdutt got his house in the year 1995 after a delay of five years.
Naturally he was aggrieved and took up the matter to the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. Gurdutt did not even ask for damages for mental distress or any special damages. He merely wanted interest at 18% per annum on the amount paid by him from January 01,1994 till the date of handing over of possession. The District Commission and the State Commission held in favour of the distressed allottee.
The GDA did not let the matter rest. It filed a second appeal before the National Consumer Redressal Commission presided over by Justice D P Wadhwa, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India.
Before the National Commission an ingenious plea was taken by the GDA that having taken possession of the house Gurdutt could not thereafter raise any grievances. In support of this contention, it relied upon a Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 738. The National Commission rejected such a stand taken by the GDA and observed that “We have examined the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Premji Bhai Parmar and others versus Delhi Development Authority and in our view the Supreme Court did not lay down any such principle.”
In conclusion, the National Commission said, “We cannot accept the proposition as canvassed by GDA that after possession is taken no consumer dispute can be raised. It is only when the possession is taken and a consumer starts living 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 arguments of Kulshreshtha, we will be making sec 3 of the Consumer protection Act ineffective. The right of the consumer to approach the consumer forum will be barred only under sec 24A of the Act, which provides of limitation for initiating action. It is a dangerous proposition to contend that the right of consumer gets wiped out on his taking possession of the house.”
Thus, the arduous route to justice ended for Gurdutt with the order of the National Commission dated September 9, 1999 in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Gurdutt Pandey by which he got his house as well as the interest for the money paid; but he had to fight in three courts to affirm an obvious proposition of law!
The writer is a distinguished practicing advocate of the Madras High Court who wields expertise in civil and corporate areas of law.
