2021 INSC 0574
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2998 OF 2010
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (SHRI GRISH BATRA)                       
M/S.PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE 
DEVELOPERS (I) LTD.                               …       APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE GENERAL SECRETARY 
(SHRI AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL 
GARDEN      RESDIENTS WELFARE 
ASSOCIATION                                           …      RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4085 OF 2010
J U D G M E N T
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Both   the   consumer   (who   was   the   complainant)   as   well   as
the   opposite   party   before   the   National   Consumer   Disputes
Redressal   Commission,   have   come   up   with   these   appeals,   the
former aggrieved by the rejection of some of the reliefs sought and

2
the   latter,   challenging   the   reliefs   granted   in   favour   of   the
consumer.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.
3. A   residential   apartment   complex   was   promoted   by   M/s
Padmini   Infrastructure   Developers   (India)   Ltd.   ( hereinafter
referred   to   as   ‘the   opposite   party’ ),   on   a   land   allotted   by   New
Okhla Development Authority (‘ NOIDA’ for short ).  It appears that
the opposite party constructed about 282 apartments and offered
them for sale. The purchasers were put in possession during the
period   from   1998­2001,   but   the   completion   certificate   itself   was
issued only in December, 2001.
4. The   purchasers   of   flats   formed   themselves   into   an
association   known   as   Royale   Garden   Residents   Welfare
Association   and   got   it   registered   on   30.09.2003   under   the
Societies Registration Act, 1860.
5. The   Residents   Welfare   Association   entered   into   an
agreement on 15.11.2003 with the opposite party for taking over
the   maintenance   of   the   apartment   complex.   Thereafter,   the
Residents   Welfare   Association   ( (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the

3
‘complainant’ ),   filed   a   consumer   complaint   in   Complaint   No.9   of
2007   before   the   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal
Commission.
6. The   reliefs   sought   by   the   complainant   before   the   National
Commission were as follows:­
“1. to   pay   the   monthly   maintenance   charges   for   unsold   flats
amounting to Rs. 9,05,810/­
2. to   complete   the   water   softening   plant   and   make   it
operational.
3. to   complete   fire   fighting   equipments   and   make   the   same
operational and to obtain safe working certificate from Fire
Safety Department of NOIDA and handover the same to the
Complainant.
4. to furnish and equip a second health club for which space
is   available   in   half   portion   of   basement   of   Tower   Blue
Heaven­2.
5. to   complete   a   second   swimming   pool   and   get   cement
plastered and white washed the stilts.
6. to   provide   furnished   space   for   a,   Club   House   in   the
basement of Eden Tower which is existing but locked.
7. to get the rented portion of the terrace (roof) vacated meant
for   the   resident   of   Tower   Eden   of   the   Complainant   rented
out   by   the   Opposite   Party   to   HUTCH   (P)   Limited   and
earned   rent   after   on   15.11.2003   to   be   returned   to   RWA
with 24% interest.
8. not   to   sell   or   rent   out   the   remaining   flats   about   45   till   the
facilities   mentioned   above   are   provided   to   the
Complainant.
9. to   direct   the   OP   not   be   sell   stilt   and   open   car   parking   to
future or present purchasers.

4
10. to   pay   the   cost   to   the   Complaint   and   damages   for
harassment   mental   torture,   agony   etc.   caused   to   the
Complainant by the OP.
11. to   pass   any   other   or   further   orders   which   this   August
Commission   deems   fit   in   the   circumstances   of   the   case   to
meet the ends of justice.”
7. The   complaint   was   resisted   by   the   opposite   party   both   on
merits   and   on   the   ground   of   limitation.   The   opposite   party   also
claimed that the  Agreement dated 15.11.2003, entered into with
the   complainant   contained   an   arbitration   clause   and   that
whatever   facilities/amenities   were   promised   at   the   time   of
promotion of the complex, have been put in place.
8. The   National   Commission   by   its   interim   order   dated
04.06.2008,   appointed   a   local   Commissioner,   to   inspect   the
systems/facilities relatable to the reliefs claimed in prayer clause
nos.   2   to   6   of   the   complaint   and   to   submit   a   report.   The   said
Commissioner   submitted  a   report   on   08.07.2008   after  making  a
local inspection, in the presence of the representatives of both the
parties.
9. Accepting   the   report   of   the   local   Commissioner   and
overruling   the   contention   of   the   opposite   party   regarding
limitation, the National Commission allowed the complaint partly

5
by an order dated 05.01.2010. The operative part of the order of
the Consumer Commission reads as follows:
            “ Consequently,   complaint   is   partly   allowed   with   cost   of
Rs.   25,000/­   with   direction   to   the   opposite   party   to   make   the
systems/facilities   as   at   Sl.   Nos.   2,3,4,5   and   6   of   the   prayer
clause   of   the   complaint   operational/complete   and   to   obtain
and   supply   fire   safety   certificate   of   the   complex   to   the
complainant   association   within   ten   weeks   from   today.   The
opposite party will submit a report within two weeks thereafter
from   an   independent   Architect   certifying   that   the
systems/facilities   in   question   have   been   fully   made
operational/complete by the opposite party. In the event of not
making operational/complete the systems/facilities referred to
above   within   the   time   allowed,   the   opposite   party   will   pay
through   a   demand   draft   the   costs   thereof   as   mentioned   in
aforesaid report dated 8.07.2008 within two weeks from after
the expiry of 12 weeks time to the complainant association.”
10. Aggrieved   by   the   order   of   the   National   Commission,   the
opposite   party   (builder) ,   has   come   up   with   one   appeal   in
C.A.No.2998   of   2010.   Aggrieved   by   the   refusal   of   the   National
Commission to grant the reliefs as per prayer clause nos. 1, 7, 8,
9   &   10,   the   consumer­complainant   has   come   up   with   another
appeal in C.A.No.4085 of 2010.
11. As observed earlier, the consumer complaint was contested
by   the   opposite   party   both   on   merits   and   on   the   ground   of
limitation.     Since   it  is  easy   to   deal  with   the   objection   relating   to
limitation without much ado, we shall take it up first.

6
12. Section   24A(1)   of   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   1986
prescribes   a   period   of   limitation   of   two   years   from   the   date   on
which   the   cause   of   action   has   arisen   for   the   admission   of   a
complaint,   by   the   District   Forum,   State   Commission   or   the
National   Commission.   In   the   case   on   hand,   the   opposite   party
handed   over   the   work   of   maintenance   of   the   complex   to   the
complainant,   under   an   Agreement   dated   15.11.2003.   As   seen
from   the   preamble   to   the   Agreement,   the   Agreement   covered
common   essential   services   such   as   generators,   lifts,   tube­well,
water   softening   plant,   electric   substation,   cabling,   fire   fighting
system,   pipelines,   swimming   pool,   health   and   fitness   centre,
parking,   club­house,   water   supply,   drainage/sewerage   system,
horticulture, water tanks/pumps and lawns/parks.
13. But   different   timelines   were   prescribed   under   the   said
Agreement   for   different   obligations   still   remaining   to   be
performed by the opposite party, towards the purchasers of flats.
The last of such timeline was indicated to be 31.03.2004.
14. There   were   specific   obligations   to   be   performed   by   the
opposite   party   under   the   said   Agreement,   in   relation   to   certain

7
services. It may be useful in this regard to extract clauses 13, 14
and 19 of the Agreement as follows:­“
13. The   FIRST   PARTY   shall   bear   the   contractual
obligations of lift, generator, health club and equipments fitted
at   swimming   pool.   FIRST   PARTY   shall   also   bear   the
maintenance   of   these   equipments   till   these   contracts   are
concluded.   FIRST   PARTY   shall   bear   any/all   expenses   on
maintenance/repair/replacement of these equipments.
14. To FIRST PARTY shall make the softening plant and
tube   will   in   working   condition   and   hand   it   over   to   SECOND
PARTY   separately  on   or  before   31.1.2004.     The   FIRST   PARTY
shall   also   bring   the   fire   fighting   Equipments/generators   in
working   condition   and   hand   it   over   to   the   SECOND   PARTY
separately on or before 31.12.2003.
…                      …                             …
19. The FIRST PARTY shall construct the second Health
Club   and   second   swimming   pool   on   or   before   31.3.2004   and
provide   space   for   Club   house   in   one   of   the   basements   for   the
residents   as   promised   and   assured   at   the   time   of   selling   the
apartments on or before 31.12.2003.”
15. Therefore, the cause of action for  the complaint, as per the
above   clauses   continued   even   after   the   date   of   the   Agreement
namely 15.11.2003.
16. In   the   affidavit   filed   by   the   local   Manager   of   the   opposite
party   by   way   of   evidence,   it   was   admitted   that   certain   works   in
relation to fire­fighting equipment continued up to the year 2005.
In   fact,   the   opposite   party   filed   certain   bills,   which   were   dated
27.02.2005,   22.04.2005,   01.05.2005,   19.07.2005,   29.10.2005

8
and 12.12.2005, to show that the opposite party was honest and
diligent in carrying out their obligations.
17. The affidavit in evidence filed by the opposite party and the
aforesaid   bills   establish   that   the   cause   of   action   continued   at
least   till   December,   2005.   The   complaint   before   the   National
Commission was filed in February, 2007. Therefore, the National
Commission   was   right   in   rejecting   the   objection   relating   to
limitation.
18. Coming   to   the   merits,   let   us   first   take   up   the   challenge   to
correctness of the reliefs granted by  the National Commission in
favour   of   the   complainant,   as   the   appeal   filed   by   the   opposite
party appears to be first in point of time.
19. The   reliefs   granted   by   the   National   Consumer   Commission
related to water softening plant, fire­fighting, second health club
equipment,   second   swimming   pool   and   space   for   club   house   in
Eden   Tower.   These   reliefs   were   granted   by   the   National
Commission   on   the   basis   of   the   Report   of   the   local
Commissioner.

9
20. It   appears   that   opposite   party   filed   objections   to   the   report
of the local Commissioner, contending  inter alia ,  (i)  that the water
softening plant was fully functional when the complex was taken
over   by   the   complainant   association;   (ii)   that   any   deficiency   or
defect   relating   to   the   fire­fighting   equipment   is   wholly
attributable   to   the   lack   of   maintenance   and   wrongful   practices
adopted   by   the   complainant   association;   (iii)     that   they   are   not
contractually   liable   to   provide   a   second   health   club   and   the
finding of the local Commissioner that one of the health clubs is
fully functional and in good condition has to be accepted; and  (iv)
that   the   second   swimming   pool   was   completed   and   made
operational   by   the   opposite   party,   but   what   remained   was   the
filling   up   of   water   after   filtration,   which   was   the   job   of   the
maintenance agency.
21. Interestingly   the   affidavit   of   objections   to   the   Report   of   the
local   Commissioner,   filed   on   behalf   of   the   opposite   party   on
06.08.2008,   covered   only   the   findings   relating   to,   (i)   water
softening   plant;   (ii)   fire­fighting   equipment;   (iii)   second   health
club;   and   (iv)   second   swimming   pool,   but   did   not   cover   the
finding   relating   to   the   liability   of   the   opposite   party   to   provide

10
furnished space for a club house in the basement of Eden Tower
(relatable   to   relief   no.6   of   the   complaint) .   However,   the   affidavit
covered   the   claim   of   the   complainant   for   maintenance   charges,
though the local Commissioner had nothing to do with the same.
22. The   Commissioner   appointed   by   the   National   Commission
was   an   architect   by   name   Amit   Bahl.   When   he   carried   out   the
inspection,   4   persons   representing   the   opposite   party,   which
included the advocate of the opposite party  and the deponent to
the   affidavit   of   objections   were   present.   The   architect   examined
each   one   of   the   items   and   not   only   found   that   they   were   not
operational on date but also found,  (i)  that the equipment for the
water softening plant was incomplete, ineffective and inadequate;
(ii)   that the fire­fighting equipments were not in operation due to
incomplete   commissioning   of   the   system   as   a   whole   and   that
even   the   fire   safety   certificate   dated   05.11.2001   noted   down   the
same;   (iii)   that while the first health club in the basement of the
Tower   Blue   Heaven­2   was   fully   furnished   and   functional,   the
second health club was not adequately furnished though the civil
works are complete;   (iv)   that the second swimming pool was not
complete   and   operational,   as   the   filtration   plant   was   non­

11
functional and the pump was removed after installation and that
even the change rooms and showers have not been provided for;
and   (v)   that in so far as the club house in the basement of Eden
tower   is   concerned   it   was   kept   under   lock   and   key   by   the
opposite   party   and   found   to   have   been   used   as   a   store   for
keeping various building materials.
23. In   the   light   of   the   aforesaid   findings   by   an   independent
architect appointed by the National Commission it is not open to
the   opposite   party   to   create   a   façade   as   though   all   essential
services   and   amenities   were   handed   over   in   a   fully   functional
state.  If all the aforesaid services had been handed over in a fully
functional   state,   the   opposite   party   should   have   taken   an
acknowledgment   in   writing   from   the   complainant.   In   the
alternative,   the   opposite   party   should   have   insisted   upon   an
appropriate provision in the Agreement dated 15.11.2003.
24. As   noted   by   the   Commissioner,   even   the   fire   safety
certificate   dated   05.11.2001   states   that   though   the   majority   of
the equipment have been satisfactorily installed, some equipment
have been removed and stored for security purposes and that the
inference therefore is that the system never got commissioned.

12
25. It is not  impossible for  an  experienced architect  to  find out
whether   the   condition   in   which   the   aforesaid   amenities   and
services   were   found   on   the   date   of   the   inspection,   was   entirely
due   to   lack   of   maintenance   or   due   to   non­commissioning   or
incomplete commissioning.
26. As   noted   by   the   National   Commission,   the   affidavit   of
objections   filed   on   behalf   of   the   opposite   party   to   the   Report   of
the   local   Commissioner   does  not   deal   with   the   cost   of   estimates
indicated   by   the   Commissioner   in   his   Report.   In   addition,   the
affidavit of objections does not even deal with the finding relating
to   the   club   house   at   Eden   Tower,   said   to   have   been   kept   under
lock and key by the opposite party for storing building materials.
The   very   fact   that   at   the   time   of   inspection   by   the   local
Commissioner,   the   possession   of   the   club   house   in   Eden   Tower
was with the opposite party, goes to show that the opposite party
was still retaining control of at least some part or certain services
in the complex, perhaps due to the fact that there were about 45
unsold flats.
27. In   view   of   the   above,   we   are   not   convinced   that   the   reliefs
granted by the National commission in favour of the complainant

13
warrant   any   interference.   Therefore,   the   appeal   in   C.A.   No.2998
of 2010 is liable to be dismissed.
28. But before we do that, we should take note of the fact that
as   per   the   operative   portion   of   the   order   of   the   National
Commission   (which   we   have   extracted   elsewhere)   the   opposite
party  is   obliged  to   make   the  systems/facilities   at   prayer   clauses
2,   3,   4,   5   &   6   of   the   complaint,   fully   operational/complete   and
they are also obliged to obtain a certificate of completion from an
independent architect.  If the opposite party failed to do so within
the   time   stipulated   by   the   National   Commission,   the   opposite
party   was   obliged   to   pay   the   cost   as   estimated   by   the
Commissioner in his Report dated 08.07.2008.
29. The costs estimated by the local Commissioner in his Report
dated 08.07.2008 are as follows :­
1
. Water softening plant Rs.   20,29,962
2
. Fire fighting equipment Rs.   83,00,000
3
. Second health club Rs.     7,60,000
4
. Second swimming pool Rs.     2,70,000
5
. Furnishing the club house in Eden 
Tower Rs.     2,75,000
 
Total
Rs.1,16,34,962

14
30. While   ordering   notice   in   C.A.No.2998   of   2010,   on
29.03.2010, this Court granted stay of operation of the impugned
order   on   condition   that   the   opposite   party–builder   deposit
Rs.60,00,000/­   within   8   weeks.   Subsequently,   the   order   was
modified on 14.05.2010, permitting the opposite party to deposit
the   sum   in   two   equal   instalments,   the   first   instalment   before
22.05.2010 and 2 nd
 instalment before 15.07.2010. It appears that
the amount has been accordingly deposited and the amount has
been   invested   in  a   Fixed   Deposit  which  is   renewed  from   time  to
time by the orders of this Court.
31. In   view   of   the   fact   that   the   possession   of   the   common
amenities   were   handed   over   by   the   opposite   party   to   the
complainant   Association   18   years   ago   (under   the   Agreement
dated 15.11.2003), it may not be possible at this distance of time
to compel the opposite party to make those facilities/systems at
relief clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, fully operational now.   The cost of
estimate   which   works   out   to   approximately   Rs.1.16   crores,
includes within itself the cost of fire fighting equipment and this
constitutes   the   major   component   (it   works   out   to   Rs.   83   lakhs).
As seen from the Commissioner’s Report, the mistake committed

15
by   the   opposite   party   was   in   removing   a   part   of   the   equipment
but not putting them back.   This finding is as per the fire safety
certificate.   Therefore,   it   may   not   be   appropriate   to   ask   the
opposite party to bear the entire burden.
32. Therefore, taking into account the overall picture, we are of
the   considered   view   that   interests   of   justice   will   be   met   if   the
order  of the National Commission is  modified in  such  a manner
(i)  that the complainant Association shall receive in full and final
settlement,   the   deposit   now   lying   in   the   Registry   of   this   court,
towards adequate compensation for the reliefs that they are held
entitled to by the National Commission; and  (ii)  that the opposite
party   is   directed   to   remove   all   building   material   stored   in   the
club   house   in   the   basement   of   Tower   Eden   and   hand   over
possession of the club house to the complainant.
33. Now coming to the appeal CA No.4085 of 2010 filed by the
complainant   against   the   refusal   of   the   reliefs   in   prayer   clause
nos.1,   7,   8,   9   and   10,   we   think   that   the   National   Commission
was   justified   in   rejecting   those   reliefs.   The   claim   for   monthly
maintenance   charges   for   the   unsold   flats,   amounting   to
Rs.9,05,810/­   sought   as   per   prayer   clause   no.1,   was   made   by

16
the complainant on the basis of clause 10 of the Agreement dated
15.11.2003 which reads as follows:
“10. The FIRST PARTY agrees to pay to the SECOND PARTY
the   monthly   maintenance   charges   @   50   paise   per
square   feet   for   the   unsold   flats   w.e.f.   16.11.2003.
FIRST   PARTY   shall   make   the   advance   payment   for   6
months   within   7   days   of   signing   of   the   agreement.
Subsequently   these   charges   will   be   paid   yearly   in
advance.”
34. The averments relating to the relief claimed at prayer clause
no.1 are found in paragraph 16 of the complaint which reads as
follows:­
“16. That   the   amount   of   such   advance   payment   upto
31.12.2006 is Rs.619568/­ approx. an advance for the
year  2007 comes  to  Rs.286242/­.   Thus  the  OP has  to
make   the   total   payment   amounting   to   Rs.   905810/­
approx.   with   interest   @   24%   for   the   delayed   period   for
which   OP   had   agreed   vide   agreement   dated
15.11.2003 Clause No.6 last two lines.”
35. Though the National Commission did not deal with the relief
claimed   at   prayer   clause   No.1   in   sufficient   detail   and   the
National   Commission   did   not   also   provide   cogent   reasons   for
rejecting   the   relief,   we   find   that   the   complainant   may   not   be
entitled to the said relief. There are two reasons as to why we say
so.   The   first   reason   is   that   the   complainant   did   not   provide
detailed calculations about the plinth area of the unsold flats, the

17
period   during   which   they   remained   unsold   and   the   manner   in
which   the   amount   indicated   in   para   16   of   the   complaint   was
arrived   at.   In   any   case   the   payments   were   to   be   made   under
clause   10   of   the   agreement,   first   within   seven   days   of   the
agreement in respect of the advance payment for six months and
thereafter   by   way   of   annual   payments   in   advance.     Therefore,   a
major   portion   of   the   claim   for   money   was   obviously   barred   by
limitation   when   the   complaint   was   filed.   Moreover,   the   opposite
party  raised   a   dispute   about   the   quantum   and   asserted   in   para
16   of   their   reply  before   the   National   Commission   that   what   was
due   was   only   Rs.232750/­.   Thus,   the   question   became   a
disputed   question   of   fact   on   which   both   parties   did   not   lead
sufficient evidence.  Therefore, the rejection of the claim at prayer
clause No.1 was legally correct.
36. The   relief   claimed   at   prayer   clause   no.8   is   to   direct   the
opposite   party   not   to   sell   or   rent   out   the   unsold   flats   till   the
facilities mentioned in prayer clause nos.2 to 6 are provided. By
its very nature, this relief is in the nature of an interim relief and,
hence,   was   rightly   rejected   by   the   National   Commission   in   the
final judgment.

18
37. The  relief  claimed  in  prayer  clause  no.9  relates  to   stilt  and
open   car   parking.   There   was   no   evidence   before   the   National
Commission   to   grant   such   a   relief   and,   hence,   the   refusal   to
grant the relief mentioned in prayer clause no.9 is in order.   
38. The   claim   for   costs   and   damages   for   harassment,   mental
torture, agony etc., made in prayer clause no.10 was not granted
by   the   National   Commission,   and   rightly   so,   in   view   of   the   fact
that   after   handing   over   the   common   amenities   under   the
Agreement   dated   15.11.2003,   the   opposite   party   continued   to
carry   out   at   least   some   works.   This   is   why   the   complaint   was
lodged   in   2007.   Therefore,   we   find   no   reason   to   grant   the   relief
prayed for in prayer clause no.10.
39. That leaves us with the relief claimed in prayer clause no.7.
This was for a direction to the opposite party to vacate the tenant
occupying   the   terrace   of   Tower   Eden.   According   to   the
complainant,   the   terrace   of   Tower   Eden   was   let   out   by   the
opposite party to a company, leaving the residents of Tower Eden
without   a   terrace   for   common   use.   But   the   relief   of   eviction
involves a third party and hence the National commission rightly

19
left it to the complainant to pursue the remedy in an appropriate
Forum.
40. Thus,   we   find   that   the   refusal   of   the   National   Commission
to grant the reliefs mentioned in prayer clause nos.1, 7, 8, 9 and
10   warrant   no   interference.   Therefore,   the   appeal   of   the
complainant in CA No.4085 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed.
41. Accordingly the appeal of the consumer­complainant in C.A.
No. 4085 of 2010 is dismissed. The appeal of the builder­opposite
party  in   C.A.   No.   2998   of   2010   is   partly   allowed,   modifying   and
substituting   the   judgment   of   the   National   Consumer   Disputes
Redressal Commission dated 05.01.2010 in Consumer Complaint
No. 9 of 2007, to the following effect: 
The   complainant   shall   be   entitled   to   all   told   monetary
compensation in a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs, now lying in deposit with
the   Registry   of   this   court,   together   with   the   interest   accrued
thereon,   in   lieu   of   the   reliefs   sought   in   prayer   clauses   2,   3,   4,   5
and   6   of   the   complaint.   The   opposite   party   shall,   within   two
weeks,   remove   all   building   material   stored   by   them   in   the   club
house   in  the   basement   of  Tower  Eden  and   hand   over  possession
of   the   club   house   to   the   complainant.   The   complaint   shall   stand
dismissed in all other respects. No costs. 
42. The   parties   are   to   bear   their   respective   costs   in   these
appeals. The Registry shall liquidate the fixed deposit standing to
the credit of the above appeal and make payment of the proceeds

20
to   the   complainant   namely,   Royal   Garden   Residents   welfare
Association. All interlocutory applications if any are closed.   
...................................J.
(Hemant Gupta)
...................................J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)
New Delhi
September  28, 2021