Continuing wrong in occupancy certificate breach keeps consumer compensation claim within limitation and maintainable

A promoter's continuing failure to obtain an occupancy certificate and to bear the outgoings under MOFA was treated as a continuing wrong, so the complaint for compensation arising from repeated higher municipal and water charges was not barred by limitation. The Court also held that the flat purchasers and society were consumers because the obligation to obtain the certificate formed part of the service owed under the agreement and statutory duties, and the breach amounted to deficiency in service. The consumer complaint was therefore maintainable, and the matter was remitted for an expeditious decision on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint for compensation arising from repeated levy of higher municipal charges due to non-obtaining of an occupancy certificate was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the society and its members were consumers and the builder's failure to obtain the occupancy certificate amounted to deficiency in service.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint for compensation arising from repeated levy of higher municipal charges due to non-obtaining of an occupancy certificate was barred by limitation.

Analysis: A continuing wrong arises where there is a breach of a continuing duty or obligation, and not where only the effect of a completed wrong continues. Under the Limitation Act, a fresh period of limitation runs where the breach continues. The obligations under MOFA and the agreement to sell required the promoter to obtain the occupancy certificate and bear the outgoings until transfer. The repeated levy of higher taxes and charges flowed from the continuing failure to secure the certificate, so the injury persisted from day to day.

Conclusion: The complaint was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the society and its members were consumers and the builder's failure to obtain the occupancy certificate amounted to deficiency in service.

Analysis: The promoter's obligation to obtain the occupancy certificate and discharge outgoings under MOFA formed part of the service and contractual duty owed to the flat purchasers and the society. Failure to comply with that obligation caused the members to incur higher municipal charges and water charges. Such failure constituted a shortcoming in service and the members were entitled to seek compensation for the consequences of that deficiency.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the appellant's members were consumers.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order of the NCDRC was set aside, and the complaint was held maintainable with a direction for the NCDRC to decide the merits expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: A promoter's continuing breach of the obligation to obtain an occupancy certificate and meet the associated outgoings can constitute a continuing wrong, thereby defeating a plea of limitation, and the resulting claim for compensation for the consequences of that breach is maintainable as a consumer dispute.

---