BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD RP.No. 53/2025 AGAINST THE ORDERS IN IA 93/2025 IN CC.NO.37/2025, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD Between :

The Manager/Authorized Person, M/s Narne Estates Pvt., Ltd., 1 Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad-500009, T.G.

….Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Opposite Party And:

Mr. Raymond Rego, S/o late Austin, Aged about 59 years, Occupation : Pvt., Employee, R/o Flat No.504, IV Floor, Mythili Residency, Bharani Colony, Secunderabad – 500 094.

….Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant Counsel for Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Opposite Party :

Sri Katepalli Sai Sashi Yadav Counsel for Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant : M/s K.Venugopal Chary QUORUM:

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NJ)

FRIDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ******

Order:

PER HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT

1. This Revision Petition is filed u/s 47(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2025 in IA 93/2025 in CC 37/2025, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, in condoning the delay of over 15 years in filing the Consumer Complaint (CC).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after referred as complainant and opposite party.

3. The Complainant had filed IA 93/2025, u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 5,400 days along with the complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the opposite party stating that the opposite party offered two plots vide No.’s 18 & 19 admeasuring 250 sq. yards each apart from membership fee of Rs.200/- under certain terms and conditions vide letter dated 31.01.1994. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.57,000/- towards cost of both the plots and developmental charges of Rs.2,000/-. The opposite party addressed a letter dated 10.05.2007 stating that an amount of Rs.82,544/- was due. The complainant gave a reply on 18.05.2007 stating that there was no development till date with regard to the plots J-18 & 19 in and around the locality. The opposite party addressed another letter dated 12.06.2007 admitting payment of Rs.57,000/- in January 1994, but requested to pay development charges of Rs.75,000/- applicable at that time in instalments. As there was no response from the complainant towards payment of the development charges, it reduced the plot holdings from two to one and stated that in case they did not receive any communication, it would construe that the complainant was not interested in the project and the plot allotment would be cancelled and money would be refunded after deducting service charges. The complainant vide another letter, dated 19.06.2007 requested the opposite party not to adjust the cost of plot No.18 towards development charges of Plot No.19, but there was no response from the other end. He made several oral representations and also visited the office of opposite party several times seeking refund of money already paid to them against the plots shown to him as per the letter dated 27.09.2003. Finally, the complainant issued a letter of notice dated 24.07.2024 and subsequently issued another notice dated 06.12.2024 and sought to take notice dated 06.12.2024 for the purpose of limitation and his continuous periodical oral representations for the sake of considering that the complaint was filed within limitation. He further contended that if the Forum considers that there was an abnormal delay in filing the CC, the reasons explained supra to be considered to condone the delay of nearly 15 years.

4. The opposite party filed counter contending that the petition seeking condonation of delay of nearly 5400 days was neither maintainable in law nor on facts on the record and prayed to dismiss the same in limini. He contended that Sec.5 of Limitation Act, had no applicability to condone the delay in co