IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 17.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 04.12.2025 SECOND APPEAL NO. 739 of 2025 (Against the order dated 22.09.2025 in First Appeal No. 265/2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi)

M'ahindra Lifespace Developers Ltd.

Mahindra Towers, 5th Floor, Road Number 13, Worli, Mumbai Maharashtra-400018 Through Smarika Singh, Advocate Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

Amarchand Towers, 216, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase III, New Delhi-0110020, India .Appellant(s)

Versus Umesh Chand Goyal S/of Late Shri Gian Chand Goyal House No. 897, Sector 28, Faridabad-121008 Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Appellant(s) Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, Sr. Advocate &

Mr. Saifur Rahman Faridi, Advocate &

Ms. Soumya Gupta, Advocate &

Mr. Arjun Singh Rana, Advocate & Mr. Ishaan Saraswat, Advocate &

Ms. Sanya, Advocate For the Respondent(s) Mr. Umesh Chand Goyal, In Person

ORDER

DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the State Commission in FA/265/2022. The State Commission allowed the Appeal and remanded the matter to the District Commission for fresh adjudication on merits.

2. The Appellant herein (hereafter referred to as Opposite Party) was Respondent before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Commission. The Respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Commission.

3. The main question for consideration in the present case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Complaint was time barred or not. Brief facts of the case as recorded in paras 6 & 7 of District Commission's order are reproduced below:

"6. Briefly stated, the complainant booked a flat in the OP project on 12.09.2010. He paid the instalments towards his booked fiat as per demand raised by the OP from time to time, paying a total sum of Rs.53,53,628/- as on 27.09.2014. On 20.05.2015, he received an email wherein the complainant was offered possession of the flat vide final call letter bearing No. Ref.2757 dated 16.05.2015, along with the further demand. The complainant requested the OP for clarification vide his letter dated21.05.2015.

7. Despite repeated follow-ups towards his queries, the complainant, who took possession of the fiat in question after executing the conveyance deed on 09.06.2015, remained dissatisfied with the OP's silence and lack of clarity on his queries. It was only on 15.03.2018 when the complainant wrote to the Director of the OP Company that he received an email dated

04.07.2018 from the executive of the OP company that-

"We regret, our stance on the concerns raised by you remain the same as communicated earlier", as per his complaint."

4. Vide order dated 11.11.2022, District Commission allowed the application filed by the Opposite Party seeking dismissal of the complaint on account of it being time barred. In this regard extract of relevant paras of order of District Commission is reproduced below:

"8. A bare perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant on page no. 19 of his complaint under Clause XV. Limitation himself states that the cause of action arose on 20.03.2015 when he received a letter from the OP dated 20.03.2015 offering possession of the apartment. He has further accepted that the conveyance deed was executed on 09.06.2015, and it was only on 14.04.2016 that he raised his demand for payment of Rs. 7 Lacs and some additional amount due towards him by the OP for the first time. Perusal of correspondence reveals that the demand was rejected by OP vide letter dated 03.08.2016 and it is final stand which were also referred in its subsequent email dated 18.01.2018 to complainant. Thereafter limitation expired in between August, 2018 to January, 2020 but the comp