The court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and it cannot act as an Appellate Court against the orders passed by the NCDRC.

CM(M) 1236/2022Page 1 of 11

$~2

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 12.12.2023

+

CM(M) 1236/2022

M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms.Kanika

Agnihotri

and

Mr.Gandharv Garg, Advs.

versus

SUKHPAL SINGH BHULLAR & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.Yadvinder Singh Dhillon,

Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1.

This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated

15.09.2022 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as

„NCDRC‟) in First Appeal No. 180/2019, titled M/s Taneja

Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Sukhpal Singh Bhullar &

Anr., whereby the learned NCDRC has been pleased to dismiss

the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, and pass the

following directions:

Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL

Signing Date:14.12.2023

18:18:26

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 1236/2022Page 2 of 11

law.”

Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL

Signing Date:14.12.2023

18:18:26

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 1236/2022Page 3 of 11

2.

As a brief background, the facts leading to the present petition

are that one Ms. Harmisha had applied for the allotment of a

commercial plot in the project of the petitioner company, TDI

City, Mohali, in the year 2006 by depositing a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- on 04.04.2006. The respondents herein purchased

the said allotment in the year 2008. As the petitioner did not allot

the plot to the respondents, the respondents filed a complaint

before the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,

Mohali (hereinafter referred to as „DCDRF‟), on 05.02.2017. The

said complaint was, however, returned for lack of pecuniary

jurisdiction by the learned DCDRF, vide Order dated 09.11.2017.

The respondents then filed a complaint before the learned State

Consumer

Redressal

Commission,

Punjab,

Chandigarh

(hereinafter referred to as „State Commission‟), on 17.04.2018.

The said complaint was allowed by the learned State

Commission, directing as under:-

complainants including litigation expenses.”

Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL

Signing Date:14.12.2023

18:18:26

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 1236/2022Page 4 of 11

3.

Aggrieved of the above order, the petitioner challenged the same

before the learned NCDRC in the form of the above referred

appeal, which has now been dismissed by the Impugned Order.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

NCDRC has failed to appreciate that the complaint filed by the

respondents was barred by limitation. She submits that the period

of limitation for filing of a complaint is prescribed in Section

24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the „Act‟).

She submits that, in the present case, the petitioner had issued a

Public Notice dated 12.10.2011, advising various allottees

including the respondents herein that their allotment is likely to

be cancelled as they have defaulted in payment of the instalments

for their respective plots. She submits that, therefore, the cause of

action, if any, would arise in favour of the respondents on

12.10.2011; the petition having been filed the Complaint only in

the year 2018, the same was, therefore, clearly barred by

limitation.

5.

She further submits that the learned State Commission and the

learned NCDRC have also erred in directing the refund of the

amount deposited by the respondents along with interest at the

rate of 12% per annum. She submits that the rate of interest

awarded by the learned State Commission and the learned

NCDRC is exorbitant and is liable to be set aside.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

learned NCDRC has erred in further directing the petitioner to

send a copy of the Order passed by the learned NCDRC to the

Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL

Signing Date:14.12.2023

18:18:26

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 1236/2022Page 5 of 11

other 33 allottees who were also mention