The court held that ongoing claims for refunds remain valid despite arguments of limitation and procedural objections.

1. This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 348 of 2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (District Commission for short).

2. The District Commission as per the order dated 28.1.2023 directed the appellants and other opposite parties to pay the complainants Rs. 10,50,000 being the amount received by the opposite parties, to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 costs.

3. The complainants are the respondents 1 & 2 and the other opposite parties are the remaining respondents in the appeal.

4. The allegations contained in the complaint in brief are that the 1st opposite party is a Company by name "Maruti Habitat & Realtors India Pvt. Ltd." engaged in the construction of Apartments and Villas. The 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director and opposite parties 3 to 6 are the Promoters and Directors of the 1st opposite party.

5. The complainants on 22.12.2008 had entered into an agreement with the 7th and 8th opposite parties for purchasing 1.54% of undivided interest in the total area of land consisting of 63.680 cents for a total consideration of Rs. 50,000. On that day itself another agreement was also executed for the construction of an apartment 'Type A' on the 16th floor of the "Maruti Palace View". The complainants had remitted Rs. 25,000 as booking charges and a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid by way of a cheque. In view of another agreement executed for the purchase of apartment of "Type C" on the 7th floor for a sum of Rs. 27,13,000 for which a payment of Rs. 25,000 as initial payment and Rs. 5 lakhs by way of a cheque were made. Thus the complainants had paid Rs. 10,50,000. But the opposite parties never made any effort for the construction of the apartment as promised and they never made any common amenities of Club house, swimming pool, kids play area etc. and there was serious deficiency of service on the side of opposite parties. Due to the unfair trade practice the complainants had lost an opportunity to possess an apartment. Hence they would seek a direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount along with interest.

6. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the prayer for refund of advance money is outside the scope of Consumer Forum. The Consumer Protection Act does not contemplate refund of advance money paid in a cancelled contract. The construction could not be pursued due to recession, scarcity of labourers and river sand. There is gross dereliction on the part of the complainants in payment of the balance amount. The claim is barred by limitation as the complaint has been filed after elapse of a period of 2 years after their withdrawal from the contract. The complaint is not maintainable as two complainants together had filed the complaint without obtaining leave of the Court. So the opposite parties would seek for the dismissal of the complaint.

7. In the appeal memorandum it is contended that the complainants ought to have filed the complaint within 2 years from the date of refusal of delivery of possession as held by the Apex Court in " Mehna Singh Khera and Another v. M/s Unitech Ltd. ". They placed reliance upon another Ruling reported in 2021 (5) KHC 475 in " Agarwal v. Aneja Consultancy " to canvas a position that the two complainants together cannot file a complaint without the leave on the Court. Hence the appellants would seek for setting aside the order of the District Commission by allowing the appeal.

8. Heard the Counsel for the appellant. Perused the appeal memorandum and the order of the District Commission.

9. The complainants had entered into a contract for the purchase of the apartments