Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Pushpa Jagannath Shetty & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Sahaj Ankur Realtors & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3160 of 2023
Decided on : 28-02-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 69 – Consumer Complaint – Limitation – Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement – Proposed redevelopment however could not be completed in stipulated time – NCDRC dismissed it on grounds of limitation – It was a continuing cause of action and only when escrow expressed helplessness that complainant was forced to file complaint – Limitation, while important as a feature of law, is not meant to defeat a substantive right – Efforts, in earnestness, to secure possession of flats cannot be discounted in order to compute applicable limitation – Considering consistent efforts back and forth, inter se parties, with regard to implementation of terms of contract, there was no question of dismissal of complaint on issue of limitation – NCDRC committed an error on face of record – NCDRC ought to have taken a holistic view of situation and then proceeded to examine whether relief as claimed may be granted in favour of appellants – Complaint filed by appellant is within time and same is restored to its status and number. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Question that arises for consideration pertains to the calculation of limitation in preferring complaint case. According to impugned order, six months are required to be counted from date of the indemnity cum undertaking, i.e. 10th January 2015. Flats in escrow were to be given requisite permissions, which could not be obtained within a period of six months; hence, cause of action arose on 10th July 2015. Complaint case came to be filed on 19th February 2019, as such, same was barred by limitation.
Findings of Court:
Observations made herein are only for the purpose of determining the issue of limitation, and as such, save and except this limited issue, the Commission shall decide the petition on its own merit. All other contentions are left open.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
Key Points: - Limitation is not to defeat a substantive right; earnest efforts to secure possession of flats are relevant to limitation computation. (!) - The NCDRC erred by holding the complaint time-barred; the case involves a continuing cause of action due to ongoing efforts and escrow arrangements. (!) (!) - The Court held that the complaint was within time and restored it to its status, directing expeditious adjudication by NCDRC. (!)
ORDER :
1. This appeal is under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and is directed against the judgment dated 14th March 2023 passed in Consumer Case No.238 of 2019 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1[hereinafter NCDRC].
2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents are a partnership firm that owned the building named "Madhav Baug" in the village of Andheri, Mumbai. The complainants were tenants in two flats on the ground floor in Building-A. The former decided to demolish this building and construct a new one and, in furtherance thereof, executed, a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement dated 20th September 2013, allotting Flat No. 801, carpet area 700 sq. ft. on the 8th floor of the B-Wing of the new building. The agreement provided 24 months from the date of the issue of the commencement certificate, along with a grace period of 6 months to complete such construction. The proposed redevelopment however could not be completed in the stipulated time, as such, on 10th January 2015, the respondents executed an “Indemnity- cum-Undertaking” to allot two flats numbered 301 and 302 having carpet area of 650 sq. ft. and 667 sq. ft. in B-Wing, free of cost, if necessary approvals could not be obtained within 6 months. This agreement further provided that if the respondents failed to give either of the two options to the appellants, they would be entitled to compensation for 1317 sq. ft. carpet area at market value plus 25% additional value thereon.
3. Vacant possession of the old flats was handed over in December 2014 and necessary monetary consideration for alternative accommodation stood transferred to the appellants within time. The contractual period of 24 months expired in December 2016. The respondent continued payment of rent of alternate accommodation of the appellants at the applicable rates till January 2019. Balance of the dislocation compensation i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-, remained pending thereafter. Several letters were exchanged, and meetings were held between the parties. The appellants wrote a letter dated 13th August 2018 to Mr. Mahesh Jani, the solicitor and escrow agent, asking him to hand over the papers of the flats in escrow to them. In a meeting held on 26th September 2018, the respondents were informed by Mr. Jani that if the approved layout plan was not produced, the flats put in escrow could be released to the appellants on 11th October 2018. Further time was sought on two occasions, but the flats in escrow were finally released to the appellants on 17th December 2018.
4. Having received the said flats, the instant complaint case2[Annexure A-10 of the Paperbook] came to be filed on 6th February 2019 seeking the following reliefs, inter alia :
AND/OR in the Alternative, This Hon’ble Court direct and order the opposite party to pay to the Complainants, a Sum of Rs.4,59,96,225/- (Rupees Four Crores Fifty-Nine Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Five only) as market value and 25% compensation for the Flats and further interest thereon at the rate of 12% Per annum till payment or realization from the date of filing of this Complaint.
b) That this Hon'ble Court, Direct and order the opposite party. The Opposite Party to be restrained by an order and direction of this Hon'ble Curt not to create any third-Party rights or enc
Limitation, while important as a feature of law, is not meant to defeat a substantive right – Efforts, in earnestness, to secure possession of flats cannot be discounted in order to compute applicabl....
Breach of contractual obligations in housing redevelopment led to consumer compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.
Flat Buyers have right to receive fair delay compensation when developers unduly and unreasonably delayed possession as per Agreement.
(1) Contract - A term of a contract, will not be final and binding if it is shown that the consent to the said term was not really voluntary, if the person giving consent had no other choice. (2) Nom....
(1) Earing profits - The onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of plots/ flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to....
(1) Negligence on Part of Builder – If the builder, whose services are engaged by a buyer for construction of a residential house for him fails to complete the construction and deliver its possession....
Mandatory Condonation of Delay – Section 24A is a legislative mandate. If a complaint is filed after the expiry of two years, the Complainant must satisfy the Forum that there was “sufficient cause” ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
