SC: Failure to obtain occupation certificate deficiency in service

New Delhi, January 13

Holding that the failure of a builder to obtain an occupation certificate amounted to “deficiency in service” under the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court has said the builder would be liable to refund money if homebuyers were forced to pay higher taxes and water charges for want of such a certificate.

Custody: child’s welfare paramount

Noting that rights of parents are irrelevant in deciding legal battles over child custody, the SC has said the child’s welfare is paramount. “The issue of custody of a minor, whether in a petition seeking habeas corpus or in a custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration,” the top court said. tns

A Bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud set aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had rejected a cooperative housing society’s plea against the builder and asked it to approach the authorities charging higher taxes.

The cooperative housing society had gone to the NCDRC, seeking refund of the excess taxes and charges paid to the municipal authorities, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the builder.

The petitioner society alleged the builder failed to take steps to obtain the occupation certificate from the municipal authorities and in the absence of the occupation certificate, flat owners were not eligible for electricity and water connections.

After much effort, temporary water and electricity connections were given to the flat owners, but they had to pay 25% higher property tax than the normal charges.

The NCDRC dismissed the society’s complaint, saying it was barred by limitation and was not maintainable as it was in the nature of a recovery proceeding and not a consumer dispute.

However, the top court reversed the NCDRC verdict, holding that “…the respondent was responsible for transferring the title to the flats to the society along with the occupancy certificate. The failure of the respondent to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service for which the respondent is liable. The members of the cooperative housing society were well within their rights as ‘consumers’ to seek compensation for the lapse on the part of the builder”.