Portability of Health Insurance

Portability of Health Insurance

Portability of Health Insurance

If you find yourself dissatisfied with the services provided by your current mobile phone service provider and wish to switch to a different company, you can easily port your mobile number. Similarly, you also have the option to port your health insurance policy, allowing you to transfer your policy from one insurance provider to another.

                                                                                                                                                                  Subas Tiwari

Portability of Health Insurance

When you change your health insurance policy from one insurance company to another, you don’t have to lose the benefits you have accumulated.

In the past in health insurance policies, such a move resulted in your losing benefits like the waiting period for covering “Pre-existing Diseases”.

Now IRDA protects you by giving you the right to port your policy to any other insurer of your choice. It has laid down that your new insurer “shall allow for credit gained by the insured for pre-existing condition(s) in terms of waiting period”.

This applies not only when you move from one insurer to another but also from one plan to another with the same insurer.


  • You can port your policy from and to any general insurance company or specialised health insurance company
  • You can port any individual/ family policies
  • Your new insurer has to give you the credit relating to waiting period for pre-existing conditions that you have gained with the old insurer
  • Your new insurer has to insure you at least up to the sum insured under the old policy
  • The two insurers should complete the porting as per the timelines prescribed in the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations and guidelines


  • You can port the policy only at the juncture of renewal. That is, the new insurance period will be with the new insurance company
  • Apart from the waiting period credit, all other terms of the new policy including the premium are at the discretion of the new insurance company
  • At least 45 days before your renewal is due you have to
  • Write to your old insurance company requesting a shift
  • Specify company to which you want to shift the policy
  • Renew your policy without a break (there is a 30 day grace period if porting is under process)

IRDA Facilitation

IRDA has created a web-based facility to get and maintain data about all health insurance policies issued by insurance companies to individuals so that it can be accessed by the new company to which a policyholder wishes to port his policy.

This enables the new insurer to obtain data on history of health insurance of the policyholder wishing to port his policy.

Process for Health Insurance Portability Policy

If you think that health insurance portability is an excellent choice for yourself and now you are wondering how to port your health insurance policy, here are the details of how to complete the process:

Stage 1

First of all, you may have to fill the IRDA portability form to initiate the process. Note that a policyholder can initiate a portability request when the policy is due for renewal. You will have to approach the insurance company where you wish to port your existing health insurance policy. The new insurer will send you a couple of documents that include a portability form and a proposal form. They may also send details about various health insurance products that the company offers.

Stage 2

Once you fill all the necessary forms and submit it to your new insurance company, they will get in touch with your previous insurer for obtaining your medical records and other related information. They might also ask for your claim history. Your old insurance company is bound to share this information via IRDA i.e. the insurance regulator when they receive such requests.

Stage 3

When the new insurance company receives all the required details, they will decide whether or not they wish to provide you a health insurance policy. This is called underwriting of a policy. An underwriter will analyse the data related to you and consider your risk profile to decide about providing health insurance to you. Your new insurance company is supposed to underwrite your policy within 15 days if they decide to insure you. In case of a delay in this time period, it is considered that you are insured under the new insurance company.

Documents Required For Porting a Health Insurance Policy

The process of porting a health insurance policy can differ slightly based on the terms and conditions of the insurance company. You need to get in touch with your current and previous insurer to understand the exact set of documents required for the purpose of porting the policy. You may be asked to submit the following documents to initiate the process:

  • Identity Proof
  • Address Proof
  • IRDA portability form
  • Proposal Form
  • Insurance Policy
  • Claim History if applicable
  • Declaration of no claims, if applicable
  • Documents related to medical history

Advantages & Disadvantages of Health Insurance Portability

Switching to a new health insurance company has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. We will discuss both in this section. You can read through them and then decide whether you want to make a switch to a new insurer or renew the existing health insurance policy at your current insurance company.

Benefits of Porting Health Insurance Policy

Benefits of porting to a new health insurance company are as follows:

  • Customize the Policy- You have an option to customise the policy to an extent. This way you can make changes in the policy to suit your existing needs from a medical insurance policy.
  • No Claim Bonus- In case you have an accumulated No Claim Bonus on your existing policy, your new insurer will calculate this discount and incorporate it with the amount of premium you are supposed to pay. Thus, you can continue to avail the benefit of No Claim Bonus by leading a healthy lifestyle.
  • Health Insurance Benefits- Apart from the accumulated No Claim Bonus, all the other benefits of your policy remain intact even after you make a switch. Porting allows you to keep the existing benefits and avail new ones with a new insurer.
  • Premium- The current health insurance market in India is brimming with competition. Insurers want policyholders to join them and buy a health insurance policy. Thus, porting the existing policy may lower your premium while the benefits may increase

Disadvantages of Porting Health Insurance Policy

Disadvantages of porting to a new health insurance company are as follows:

  • Porting on Renewal- As mentioned earlier, porting a health insurance policy is only possible near the date of renewal. A policyholder may not be allowed to port the policy when the renewal date is far away.
  • Changes in Plans- Changing the existing health insurance policy drastically is not allowed. You can make certain changes in the extent of coverage, however, changing the whole plan is not possible.
  • Extra Coverage- The policyholder needs to pay a higher amount of premium for buying any kind of additional coverage at the new insurance company.

What to Do If They Reject Portability Requests?

There could be a few reasons why one’s health insurance portability gets rejected. Let’s take a look at these reasons and understand what a policyholder can do in such cases.

  • Providing incomplete information-This can lead to rejection because the new insurance company is not provided with true and complete information about the policyholder. Getting in touch with the insurance company to provide all the required details might be done to get an approval.
  • Not submitting the documents in time- As mentioned earlier, there is a timeframe in which the policyholder needs to get in touch with the new insurance company and apply for a switch. If there is a delay, the request for porting the policy may get rejected. The policyholder must now wait for the next renewal date and make sure that necessary timelines are followed.
  • Claim history- There are high chances that your request for porting the policy may get rejected if the claim history is not proper. The company has a right to reject the request in case of frauds or misrepresentation of information.

Things to Remember While Porting For Health Insurance

A medical emergency can affect a person in both financial and emotional ways. It can easily deplete your savings if you do not have proper health insurance coverage. Buying a policy without considering your needs, lifestyle, and coverage can have a huge impact on the claim amount. Thus, it is important to consider the following things while porting your health insurance policy from one insurer to another.

  • Limits and Sub-limits- Each type of coverage of a health insurance policy has a certain cap on the claimable amount. For example, the daily room rent could be capped to Rs. 2500. You need to check such limits when you port health insurance policy and make sure that you are okay with the limits and sub-limits of the new policy.
  • Benefits- Each health insurance policy is designed to provide certain features that are helpful for the policyholder. You need to understand that these features or benefits are limited to the policy and cannot be ported. For example, if your old policy offers pre-hospitalization coverage for 30 days and the new insurance company offers this coverage for 15 days, you cannot change this feature. You have to make do with the new coverage.
  • Premium- The new insurance company may offer a lower premium for a similar insurance policy. However, you need to make sure that the coverage offered for a lower premium is sufficient for your needs. Lower premiums for a lower coverage will increase your out of pocket expenses at the time of a medical emergency. ‘Out of pocket expenditure’ refers to the money you pay directly to the hospital or a medical facility without the involvement of the insurance company.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Here are some answers to the most asked questions related to Health Insurance Portability.

From the article, I understood that making a switch between two insurance companies is possible. However, is it possible to switch between plans in the same insurance company?

Yes, it is possible to switch to a new health insurance policy offered by the existing insurance company. This process will not take as much time as switching to a new insurance company, because your current insurer already has all the details required to make a switch.

I have already served half of the waiting period. Will it reset upon porting the policy to a new health insurance company?

Probably not. If the applicable waiting period for a specific condition is similar to that of the old policy, then you may only have to serve the remaining waiting period under the new plan. However, this solely depends upon the terms and conditions of the new health insurance company.

Why should I port my health insurance policy?

You should port your health insurance policy if you are not happy with the services provided, coverage, or premium with respect to the current insurance company and your health insurance policy.

Does the age of a policyholder matter while porting health insurance?

Yes, the age of a policyholder is a vital factor while porting the policy. The older the person the more will be the health insurance premium. An insurance company may also reject a proposal based on the risk factor associated with the age of a policyholder.

Is it a good idea to buy health insurance coverage from two different insurance companies?

Buying health insurance from two different insurers depends upon the coverage being purchased. There is no point in buying similar coverage from multiple insurers. Instead, consider buying different coverages to create a comprehensive health insurance portfolio. This can provide all-round coverage in the time of a medical emergency.

Info sourced from: https://policyholder.gov.in & https://www.acko.com


Choices for Homebuyers if Developers Fail to Give Possession

Choices for Homebuyers if Developers Fail to Give Possession

Choices for Homebuyers if Developers Fail to Give Possession

The Supreme Court, in the recent case of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sushma Ashok Shiroor, decided on 7th April 2022 took a very liberal view in favour of home buyers who invested their hard earned money in a developers’ project but did not get possession within the stipulated time. 

It was made clear that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had the power to give relief what the home buyer choses. The home buyer is free to make any request and the commission may grant the same if merits so permit.

Dr Prem Lata, Legal Head VOICE

The SC has allowed three fold choices to the home buyer who has not been given possession of their dwelling within the stipulated time frame. 

  1. The power to direct refund of the amount and to compensate a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of agreement is within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts. A consumer can plea for refund of the money with interest and compensation.
  2. The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation. 
  3. The consumer can also make an appeal for both. If a consumer asks for refund of the amount, without an alternative request, the Commission will recognize such a right and grant “The freedom to choose the necessary relief is of the Consumer and it is the duty of the Courts to honour it.” 

The above order makes the position clear that home buyers can be given compensation in all the situations, whether it’s asking for refund with interest and compensation or possession with delayed compensation.

Objections Raised by Builder 

The objections raised by the developer were:

  • The consumer is entitled for delayed compensation only. Since the occupation certificate had been applied and would be obtained, he/she would be entitled for compensation for delay to the tune of Rs Rs. 4, 54,052.
  • 42 months period expired on 26-6-2016, “the trigger date for clause 10.1 is 26.12.2012, which is the date of execution of the apartment buyer’s agreement”. The Commission calculated 42 months from this period, which turns out to be 26.06.2016. Further, adding the grace period of 180 days, the time for delivery would expire on 26.12.2016.
  • Occupation certificate for Phase-I of the project had already been obtained on 06.12.2017, and application for occupation certificate for Phase-2, had already been made. In the affidavit of evidence, the developer contended that it secured the occupation certificate on 23.07.2018 and a notice of possession was issued to the Consumer on 24.07.2018. It was claimed that since possession can be handed over, the complaint must be dismissed.

NCDRC Orders 

The Commission, in its judgment dated 19.06.2019, allowed the complaint after referring to Clause 10 (relating to the project completion period), Clause 11 (relating to the possession and conveyance of the apartment), as well as Clause 13 (relating to delay in possession). The Commission found that the agreement is one-sided, heavily loaded against the allottee and entirely in favour of the developers. Following the decisions of this Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govind Raghvan, the Commission directed the developer to refund the amount of Rs.2, 36, 15,726 with interest @ 9% p.a. following Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghvan. Both the parties filed appeals against the above order by NCDRC. 

The developer filed the present Civil Appeal No. 6044/2019 against these findings of paying refund with interest when possession is offered and the consequential directions of the Commission.

The consumer also filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 7149/2019, challenging the Commission’s judgment to a limited extent for grant of an enhanced interest @ 24% p.a.

Objections Raised by Developers 

The decision of this Court in Pioneer has no application to the facts of the present case, as in Pioneer, the Court did not have to deal with delay compensation clause like in the present case.

Terms of the apartment buyer’s agreement alone would govern the relations between the parties. No prejudice would be caused to the consumer if he is asked to take possession of the property. 

Referring to the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20166 and particularly to the Regulations made by Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, which were relied on in Pioneer case, the builder submitted that the consumer had elected to proceed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore the provisions of RERA Act will not apply and the Pioneer cannot be followed as a precedent.

The interest granted by the Commission is excessive in both the period of the grant and the rate of interest.

Issues before the SC 

  • Whether the Commission has the power under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct refund of the amount deposited by the Consumer with interest when the developer is ready to give possession. 
  • Whether the terms of the Apartment Buyers Agreement amount to an ‘unfair trade practice’ and whether the Commission is justified in referring the Pioneer Case which was mainly decided under the RERA Act.

Referred Cases 

In the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta, the Court held that when a person hires the services of a builder, or a contractor, for the construction of a house or a flat, and the same is for a consideration, it is a “service” as defined by Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The inordinate delay in handing over possession of the flat clearly amounts to deficiency of service.

In Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D’Lima, the Court held that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him, and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him, along with compensation. The money deposited by him along with appropriate compensation.  

In the instance of IREO Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. V. Abhishek Khanna, a three-judge bench of this Court noticed the delay compensation clause, which is similar to the clause in the present case, which provided that the Developer would be liable to pay delay compensation @ Rs 7.5 per square foot which works out to approximately 0.9 to 1% p.a. The Court held that this clause is one-sided and entirely loaded in favour of the developer and against the allottee. The Court concluded that the powers of the Consumer Court were in no manner constrained to declare a contractual term as unfair and one-sided as an incident of the power to discontinue unfair or restrictive trade practices.

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other 

In terms of Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment duly completed by the date specified in the agreement, the promoter would be liable, on demand, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment if the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project.

 Interpretation of Statutes When Statutes provide more than one judicial fora for effectuating a right or to enforce a duty-obligation, it is a feature of remedial choices offered by the State for an effective access to justice. Therefore, while interpreting statutes provisioning plurality of remedies, it is necessary for Courts to harmonise the provisions in a constructive manner. 

2021 In Review: Landmark judgments by the Supreme Court

2021 In Review: Landmark judgments by the Supreme Court

2021 In Review: Landmark judgments by the Supreme Court

Leading cases decided by the honourable Supreme Court in the year 2021 are going to be remembered as benchmark judgments in the evolution of consumer jurisprudence. Let us know here, what significance these hold.

Dr Prem Lata

Supreme Court (SC) is the final court of appeal in the country. As per Consumer Protection Act (CPA), cases reach the Court when judgements of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) come in to appeal by the losing party. The SC has worked very well in 2021 to adjudicate consumer disputes that came before it. It also took cognizance of some vital consumer issues which were affecting the consumer rights adversely by giving a just interpretation to the law to end consumer sufferings. 

To put this into perspective, let us recap a bit. Year 2019 was a table-turning year when Consumer Protection Act 1986 was repealed with the Act of 2019. This new law came into force in July 2020. Consequently, year 2021 was full of queries, debates and implementation of issues arising from repeal of old Consumer Protection Act. As per the Indian Constitution, SC judgements are to be followed by all courts of the country and their interpretation must be observed in adjudicating the cases at various levels by courts at all levels. Here are the top 10 cases in Consumer Law decided in 2021:


Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abhishek Khanna & Others, Civil Appeal No. 5785 of 2019 (Supreme Court)

Bench -Dr Dhananjaya, Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee

Decided on –January11, 2021

Ref. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd Vs Govindan Raghavan

SC held-

“We are of the view that the incorporation of such one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. Developer cannot compel the apartment buyers to be bound by the one-sided contractual terms contained in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement.”


Narinder Chopra V/S Jaiprakash Associates (NC)

Consumer Complaint No 3258 0f 2017 along with IA 330 of 2021&IA 1130 Of 2021

Decided On 16.5.2021

Law point:  

  1. Whether pending matters are to be transferred to appropriate commission after enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction 

NC held-

  • There is no provision for transfer of pending cases in the new Act of 2019
  • The transitional provisions contained in Sections 31, 45 and 56 expressly indicate that the adjudicatory personnel who were functioning as Members of the District Commission, SCDRC and NCDRC under the erstwhile legislation shall continue to hold office under the new legislation. 
  • Previous decisions of the NCDRC which had interpreted after amendments 2002, that enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction, with prospective effect. Ref. Cases Southfield Paints and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Dr Manoj Ramachandran, where the NCDRC held that the amendments enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction are prospective in nature.


M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs Manisha Bhargava and Another 

(Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021)

Decided on February 11, 2021. Supreme Court of India

SC held-

  • Written statement by opposite party to complaint within 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days, should be read as mandatory
  • Commencing point of limitation of 30 days, under the aforesaid provisions, would be from the date of receipt of notice accompanied by a copy of the complaint, and not merely receipt of the notice

 CASE 4 

Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abhishek Khanna & Others Civil Appeal No. 5785 Of 2019 (Supreme Court 

Bench -Dr Dhananjaya, Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee

Decided on –January11, 2021

SC held-

  • Both the acts are equal and not conflicting or inconsistent to each other, give additional remedy to the consumers under Section 100 of CP Act 2019 & Section 88 of RERA Act 2019
  • Section 79 of the RERA Act bars any civil proceedings in real estate matters but does not bar Consumer Commissions
  • Section 71(1) of the RERA Act entitles a complainant to withdraw the proceedings under the CP Act with the permission of the Forum or Commission and file under RERA Act. 


Honda Cars India Limited Vs Sudesh Berry CIVIL APPEAL NO.6802 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11986/2020) SC 

Decided on 12 November, 2021

SC held

  • If there be any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorised centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle, the manufacturer of the vehicle cannot be held liable. 

CASE 6  

TATA Motors Ltd Vs Antonio Paulo Vaz & Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 125 

SC held 

  • Manufacturer and dealer have principal to principal relation and not of principal to agent. Manufacturer not held liable for the wrongs of dealer.                                                                 

CASE  7  Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Ltd Vs Sanjeev Kumar Sharma & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 714]

Decided on December 2021

SC held

  • NC has discretionary power vested with it to impose any condition while giving stay and rightly ordered to pay entire amount as determined amount by State Commission
  • This condition has to do nothing with mandatory requirement of depositing 50 per cent of determined amount by State Commission. 


M/s Sheth M L Vaduwala Eye Hospital Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others SC Judgment by J. Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. Dt 11 Dec 2021

SC held 

An insurance policy taken by doctors for professional indemnity can’t be used to make insurance companies pay the liability of compensation to patients on behalf of the hospital which is not insured. 

CASE 9. 

M/S. Newtech Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs State Of Up & Ors. 

Civil Appeal No(S). 6753 Of 2021 (Arising Out Of SLP(Civil) No(S). 3426 Of 2021)

SC Judgment Dt 11 Nov 2021 

SC held 

  • To ensure greater accountability towards consumers and in view of the objective of the act, ongoing projects are also brought under the provisions of the act hence retroactive application of RERA Act confirmed 
  • Section 18 confers right upon an allottee to get refund of the amount deposited with the promoter with interest if the promoter fails to give possession by the date specific
  • Single member of the authority under Section 81 of the Act authorised to order for refund and under Sec 40 can provide for collection of funds as revenue.

CASE  10 Union Bank Of India v/s Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory 

High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench At Jaipur D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13688/2021 Bench: Akil Kureshi, Uma Shanker Vyas 

Decided on 14.12.2021 

H.C of Rajasthan held 

  • That pursuant to taking possession of the project, the bank enters into the shoes of the promoter and becomes the assignee of the promoter and thus, amenable to jurisdiction of RERA.
  • The RERA would prevail over SARFAESI Act‘ 
  • The rights of the real estate allottees cannot be compromised for the legal rights of Bank

Builder to pay additional taxes to Corporation on behalf of Home buyers

Builder to pay additional taxes to Corporation on behalf of Home buyers

Builder to pay additional taxes to Corporation on behalf of Home buyers

Dr Prem Lata Ex Member Consumer Forum; Head Legal VOICE


It’s a common grievance of home buyers that builder fails to complete the construction work including amenities as per plan and agreed terms. With the result occupancy certificate not issued by the concerned authorities, in some cases home buyers take possession under compelling circumstances with incomplete work and occupancy certificate still remains a problem. Here is a unique case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11th January 2022 which gives a new dimension to the issue of fixing liability of the developer when occupancy certificate not provided to the home buyers.


It is two-fold deficiency on the part of builder – One for delay in possession due to incomplete construction and another for not obtaining completion certificate /occupancy certificate. This creates difficulties for the home buyers when it comes to the situation for paying extra taxes to the corporation because residents are not permitted by the corporation to occupy premises unless fit to reside. The case had come up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with these facts in the matter of  Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd V/S  Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt.Ltd  against the order from NCDRC and was decided on 11th of Jan 2022

NCDRC had dismissed the complaint on 3rd  December 2018 on two grounds 

  • That it was barred by limitation 
  • That it was not maintainable since it was in the nature of a recovery proceeding and not a consumer dispute.
Therefore this appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court 

Facts of the case 

Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd constructed Wings ‘A’ and ‘B of their project   . The members of the Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society booked the flats in 1993 and got possession in 1997 without taking occupancy certificate from the municipal authorities. Flat owners were not eligible for electricity and water connections. Temporary water and electricity connections were granted by the authorities on request of residents of society consequently now they were to pay property tax at a rate 25% higher than the normal rate and water charges at a rate which was 50% higher than the normal charge.  The society filed a consumer complaint on 8 July 1998 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) Mumbai seeking a direction to the respondent to obtain the occupation certificate. The SCDRC directed the respondent vide order dated 20 August 2014, to obtain an occupancy certificate within four months. The SCDRC also directed the respondent to pay, Rs. 1, 00,000/- towards reimbursement of extra water charges paid. The society filed an application for execution of the order of the SCDRC dated 20 August 2014. No Occupancy certificate was obtained in spite of State commission order. Society now filed a complaint before the NCDRC seeking payment of Rs. 2,60,73,475/- as reimbursement of excess charges and tax paid by the members of the appellant due to the deficiency in service of the respondent and Rs. 20,00,000/- towards the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the members of the appellant.  NCDRC dismissed the complaint as above said for the reason time barred and also held matter is recovery suit, society is not a consumer under Consumer Protect Act

Supreme Court made the following observation 

That Complainant Society is entitled to file complaint on behalf of Home buyers under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act for availing services in case of any deficiency or shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality of service  There has been a direct impact on the members of the appellant in terms of the payment of higher taxes and water charges to the municipal authority. This continuous failure to obtain an occupancy certificate is a breach of the obligations imposed on the respondent under the MOFA and amounts to a continuing wrong. The appellants therefore, are entitled to damages arising out of this continuing wrong and their complaint is not barred by limitation  Sections 3 and 6 of the MOFA indicate that the promoter has an obligation to provide the occupancy certificate to the flat owners. Apart from this, the promoter must make payments of outgoings such as ground rent, municipal taxes, water charges and electricity charges till the time the property is transferred to the flat-owners. Where the promoter fails to pay such charges, the promoter is liable even after the transfer of property. .The society is currently pursuing the execution of the order of the SCDRC arising from that complaint.  In the present case, 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. Thus, the members of the appellant society are well within their rights as ‘consumers’ to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides two year period of limitation from the date of cause of action arises SC considered that since the cause of action is The failure to obtain the occupancy certificate in spite of Order by SCDRC dated 20 August 2014 and even after filing execution petition, it is continuation of wrong which has resulted in the levy of higher taxes on the members of the society.  Complainant Society adopted the correct course of litigation in demanding for indemnification of extra payments made due to the failure on the part of builder to obtain the occupancy certificate. And homebuyers continue to suffer the injury inflicted by the builder merely due to the delay in the execution of the order against them    The fact that society is currently pursuing the execution of the order of the SCDRC arising from that complaint, that itself does not preclude it from claiming compensation for the consequences which have arisen out of this continuing wrong.  Looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Society on behalf of Home buyers and held that the complaint is maintainable. SC direct the NCDRC to decide the case on and dispose the complaint within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.
Enquire Now

    Enquire Now