Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Limitation Period to File Complaint – Continuing Cause of Action Upheld – NCDRC's Dismissal on Limitation Reversed – Substantive Right of Allotment and Registration Affirmed.

NCDRC committed an error on the face of the record by dismissing the complaint solely on the ground of limitation. The complaint was within the limitation period due to the continuing cause of action. The complaint was restored to its original status and number. Matter remitted to NCDRC for expeditious disposal within six months.

Limitation should not defeat a substantive right when consistent efforts to enforce contractual obligations were ongoing. Continuing cause of action extended the limitation period. (Paras: 9, 10, 11, 12.)

Major Acts:

1. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi.

2. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24-A – Limitation Period for Filing Complaint – Two Years Limitation – Condonation of Delay.

Nature of the Litigation: Appeal against the NCDRC order dismissing the consumer complaint on the ground of limitation.

Parties and Relief Sought: a) Appellants: Pushpa Jagannath Shetty & Ors. Relief Sought:

• Allotment and registration of Flat Nos. 301 and 302 in the new building B-Wing.

• Alternative relief: Payment of Rs. 4,59,96,225/- as market value plus 25% additional compensation.

• Monthly rent of Rs. 51,537/- from January 2019 till final disposal.

• Arrears of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum.

• Litigation costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

b) Respondents: M/s. Sahaj Ankur Realtors & Ors.

Reason for Filing the Case: Delay in obtaining necessary approvals and failure to deliver agreed flats within the stipulated period.

Previous Decisions: NCDRC dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation without considering the continuing cause of action.

Issues:

1. Whether the complaint filed by the appellants was barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

2. Whether the delay in obtaining necessary approvals and subsequent communication between parties constituted a continuing cause of action?

Submissions/Arguments:

a) Appellants:

• The delay was due to the respondent’s failure to secure approvals and deliver the flats.

• Communication and ongoing discussions between the parties extended the cause of action.

• Limitation should not defeat the substantive right of the complainants.

b) Respondents:

• Complaint was time-barred, with the cause of action arising on 10th July 2015.

Subjects:

Limitation Period – Continuing Cause of Action – Substantive Right – Error on Face of Record – Consumer Dispute – Allotment of Flats – NCDRC Order – Quashing of Decision – Restoration of Complaint.