The Delhi High Court lashed out at the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for letting contractors responsible for poor quality of construction off the hook..The DDA had been receiving several letters from occupants, who had complained of poor conditions of MIG flats in Rohini since 2005. In 2006, a balcony of one of the flats had also collapsed and in 2012, a tender was awarded to another company with regard to reparation of the flats. However, it was only in 2013 that DDA sent a legal notice to the contractors and instituted the suit..The contractors moved an application for rejection of plaint on the grounds of being barred by limitation and having no cause of action..Advocate Niraj Grover, appearing for the contractors, argued that the plaintiff came to know about the alleged deficiencies in construction at least in the year 2005, when it received the first letter from one of the occupants..“The present suit, filed in 2015, is clearly barred by limitation as the same had not been filed within three years from the date the cause of action arose.”.The Single Judge Bench of Justice Manmohan, while allowing the application for rejection of plaint, observed,.“Before parting with the present case, this Court would like to express its deep anguish at the way the officials of plaintiff-DDA have dealt with the issue of alleged poor quality of construction by the contractor..This Court has no doubt that the DDA officials could have easily detected the poor quality of construction when the construction was carried out by the defendant and/or at least before the bills of the defendant were paid and a no dues certificate was issued.”.The Court further commented about connivance of DDA officials with the contractors allegedly responsible for poor construction of the flats..“To file a suit for recovery more than twenty years after handing over of possession by the defendant-Contractor shows that the intent of the officials of the plaintiff-DDA was to ensure that those responsible for poor quality of construction are ‘never brought to book’..More often than not suits are deliberately filed belatedly ‘just to pass the buck’ and to blame the judicial system for non-recovery of the compensation amount.”.The Court then directed senior officials of the DDA to take steps to put a robust mechanism in place so that the contractors who indulge in poor construction are booked at the earliest, before any loss of human life and property occurs. Lastly the Court observed,.“Dismissal of the present suit will not prevent the DDA from taking action against its own officials.”.Read the judgment:
The Delhi High Court lashed out at the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for letting contractors responsible for poor quality of construction off the hook..The DDA had been receiving several letters from occupants, who had complained of poor conditions of MIG flats in Rohini since 2005. In 2006, a balcony of one of the flats had also collapsed and in 2012, a tender was awarded to another company with regard to reparation of the flats. However, it was only in 2013 that DDA sent a legal notice to the contractors and instituted the suit..The contractors moved an application for rejection of plaint on the grounds of being barred by limitation and having no cause of action..Advocate Niraj Grover, appearing for the contractors, argued that the plaintiff came to know about the alleged deficiencies in construction at least in the year 2005, when it received the first letter from one of the occupants..“The present suit, filed in 2015, is clearly barred by limitation as the same had not been filed within three years from the date the cause of action arose.”.The Single Judge Bench of Justice Manmohan, while allowing the application for rejection of plaint, observed,.“Before parting with the present case, this Court would like to express its deep anguish at the way the officials of plaintiff-DDA have dealt with the issue of alleged poor quality of construction by the contractor..This Court has no doubt that the DDA officials could have easily detected the poor quality of construction when the construction was carried out by the defendant and/or at least before the bills of the defendant were paid and a no dues certificate was issued.”.The Court further commented about connivance of DDA officials with the contractors allegedly responsible for poor construction of the flats..“To file a suit for recovery more than twenty years after handing over of possession by the defendant-Contractor shows that the intent of the officials of the plaintiff-DDA was to ensure that those responsible for poor quality of construction are ‘never brought to book’..More often than not suits are deliberately filed belatedly ‘just to pass the buck’ and to blame the judicial system for non-recovery of the compensation amount.”.The Court then directed senior officials of the DDA to take steps to put a robust mechanism in place so that the contractors who indulge in poor construction are booked at the earliest, before any loss of human life and property occurs. Lastly the Court observed,.“Dismissal of the present suit will not prevent the DDA from taking action against its own officials.”.Read the judgment:
