Debashis Sinha and Ors. vs. R.N.R. Enterprise and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (09 Feb 2023)

It is the obligation of the person intending to erect a building or to execute work to apply for completion certificate

MANU/SC/0102/2023

Service

Present appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the C.P. Act’) calls in question the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (‘NCDRC’). By the impugned order, the NCDRC has dismissed the consumer complaint lodged by the Appellants.

The multiple Appellants are owners of flats in different blocks of a housing complex. Aggrieved by the failure of the Respondents - the developers of the housing complex - to provide services as promised, the jurisdiction of the NCRDC was invoked by the Appellants in 2008. They alleged that despite paying full consideration amount as per market rate and despite execution and registration of deeds of conveyance in their favour, the Respondents had failed, to provide the ‘Completion Certificate’, which is their statutory obligation as per the rules of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (‘KMC’,); and, in the absence of such a certificate, their occupation of the respective flats has been rendered precarious.

It is evident on a conjoint reading of sections 403, 390, and 394 of the KMC Act, 1980 that it is the obligation of the person intending to erect a building or to execute works to apply for completion certificate in terms of the rules framed thereunder. It is no part of the flat owner’s duty to apply for a completion certificate. When the Respondents had applied for permission/sanction to erect, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Buildings Rules, 1990 ( ‘1990 Rules’) were in force. In terms of sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 26 thereof, the obligation as cast was required to be discharged by the Respondents. Evidently, the respondents observed the statutory provisions in the breach.

The NCDRC referred to sub-section (2) of section 403 of the KMC Act only to permit the Respondents to wriggle out of such obligation and arrived at a completely erroneous finding that no deficiency in service could be attributed to the Respondents since both the Respondents and the Appellants had acted in violation of law. The Appellants ought not to have taken possession without the completion certificate; however, that was not a valid ground not to direct the respondents to apply for and obtain the completion certificate as required by law. The mere fact that, the flat owners were being assessed by the KMC affords no reason to the respondents for breaching Section 403(1) read with rule 26 of the 1990 Rules.

Once a completion certificate is issued by the KMC upon conducting appropriate inspection and tests of the building that has since been erected, it would stand to reason that the same amounts to a certification that the building does not suffer from any violation of the building plan sanctioned for the purpose under section 390 of the KMC Act or that its constructional quality is not of the desired level for which it is unsafe for human habitation. The respondents have been let off by the NCDRC in a manner contrary to law.

Present is an appropriate case where the complaint of the Appellants ought to be remitted to the NCDRC for taking a relook into the complaint in accordance with law. The remand is directed only with a view to secure adherence to the promises that the Respondents had made in the brochure and/or advertisement, as the case may be, and thereby cover up deficiency in service, as well as the mandatory statutory provisions. Appeal disposed off.

Tags : DEFICIENCY SERVICE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE