Consumer complaints regarding patent deficiencies in building amenities, filed beyond the two-year limitation period from the date of possession, are not maintainable under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, if not supported by an application for condonation of delay.

Order on the applications seeking dismissal of the complaint u/sec.69 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 filed by the opponent.

(Date 16/04/2026)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. The complainants have filed the complaint against the opponent for the deficiency in service, namely, not providing common amenities and also claimed compensation for delayed delivery of possession of the flat. It is contended that the complainants obtained brochure of the opponent and on relying on the contents of the brochure, the complainants booked the flat and entered into an Agreement with the opponent, which reflects date of possession. The opponent failed to hand over possession of flat to the complainants as per the agreed timelines. The flat was finally handed over to the complainants as per the date given in the chart below. However, there is no clarity on the common area amenities, which were promised to be provided nor does the opponent pay the complainants adequate compensation for the delayed delivery of possession. It is also contended that in the month of March 2019, the flat purchasers formed the Society. On 19/11/2021, the Society appointed Architect to make a survey of the common amenities. Accordingly, the Architect prepared the report and submitted it to the Society, who in turn informed the complainants that the opponent has failed to provide some of the promised amenities of Jacuzzi in club house, massage room, motion sensors for automated lighting in passages, Amphitheatre, Fountains and water bodies, business centre with 2 conference rooms, and piped gas which were promised to the Complainants as per brochure and Agreement entered into with the complainants. Being aggrieved by such deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants issued legal notice to the Opponent by e-mail and, thereafter, filed the present consumer complaint on 04/01/2022.

2. Accordingly, the notice was issued to the opponent. The opponent appeared in the complaint and filed their written statement and denied the allegations made in the consumer complaint. It is contended that the complaint is barred by limitation. It is also contended that the complainants did not file an application for condonation of delay and the said fact was not properly considered by the Ld.District Consumer Commission and admitted the consumer complaint. Hence, the opponent filed an application seeking dismissal of the complaint u/sec.69 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, wherein it is admitted that the complainants had booked the flat and made payment of total consideration of Rs.1,68,34,554/-. It is contended that the complainants have sought relief of compensation for delayed possession along with interest and also sought direction for providing amenities. It is contended that the complainants took possession of the flat on 11/07/2016. Therefore, they ought to have filed the complaint on or before 10/07/2018 but the complaint is filed on 01/02/2022. It is contended that there is delay of three years, six months and 11 days in filing the consumer complaint. So the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is contended that the complaint was filed on the basis of the report of the Architect appointed by the Housing Society. The said report is dated 19/11/2021. The Housing Society is not made party in the complaint. Therefore, the said report cannot be taken into account. It is contended that the opponent paid a rent of Rs.4,32,000/- for delayed possession, which was accepted by the complainants without any demur. Therefore, the complainants cannot seek any relief for delayed possession. It is conten