State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager Narne Estates Pvt Ltd ... vs Mr Raymond Rego S/O. Late Austin on 20 February, 2026
1
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUM ER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COM M ISSION 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 SM T. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SM T. M EENA RAM ANATHAN, M EM BER (NJ)
FRIDAY, THE 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY
TW O THOUSAND TW ENTY SIX
******
Order:
PER HON'BLE SM T. 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 Redre ssal 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.
23. 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 3 same in limini. He contended that Sec.5 of Limitation Act, had no applicability to condone the delay in consumer complaint. The petition ought not to have been numbered since, the prayer sought for in the affidavit and petitioner were contradictory to each other. The petitioner did not explain day to day delay or even month to month delay in filing the CC. The delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course and that a reasonable and sufficient cause had to be shown. There was absolutely no explanation with regard to the delay of nearly 15 years.
The opposite party further contended that the complainant had paid only part payment and he was a defaulter. Vide letter dated 10.05.2007, the opposite party has clearly mentioned the outstanding dues of the complainant. Though the amounts paid were adjusted towards plot No. 19, even then, the complainant did not come forward for registration of plot No.19. The point No.7 in the membership application clearly stated that the development charges shall be paid in instalments as notified in quarterly circulars/letters. The complainant's claim to the contrary was incorrect. There was no deficiency of service by the opposite party Company. The complainant remained silent for 15 years despite full knowledge of the plots being cancelled and refund being initiated. He cleverly issued a letter dated 24.07.2024 requesting for registration of plots and subsequently got issued a legal notice dated 06.12.2024. In fact, no such legal notice was received by the opposite party. Despite providing multiple opportunities, the complainant did not respond. As such, the opposite party cancelled allotment of plot No.19 and issued refund of Rs.49,000/- vide DD, bearing No. 234541, dated 23.02.2008 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Secunderabad Branch along with covering letter and receipt. However, the complainant refused to acce pt the refund and it was returned. Viewing from any angle, the petition was devoid of merit and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
5. The District Commission on hearing both the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent, passe d the impugned order allowing the IA condoning the delay observing that "In the case on hand, it is the defence of the respondent that since the petitioner has not come forward for registration, it has cancelled the allotment of the plot and 4 has refunded the amount, but the petitioner has refused to take the amount. It is pertinent to note that there is no iota of material to prove that the cancellation agreement is executed between the parties and the amount is refunded to the petitioner after cancellation. In the absence of material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of action is continuous. Even if the petitioner has failed to file the consumer complaint within a period of 02 years prescribed under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, he cannot be debarred from filing the same after the expiry of the said period as the cause of action is continuous".
6. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Consumer Commission in allowing the IA, condoning the delay, the respondent/opposite party preferred this revision.
7. Heard the learned counsel Dr.Saroj Bastawala, representing M/s Katepalli Sai Sashi Yadav for the revision petitioner and M/s K.Venu Gopala Chary for the respondent/complainant.
8. Now the point for consideration is : whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality or material irregularity to set aside the same.
9. Point :- The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the District Commission misapplied the doctrine of continuous cause of action. A cancellation and tender of refund would constitute a completed repudiation and not continuing. Limitation commenced from the date of such cancellation in the year 2008 and expired in 2010. A repudiation coupled with refund is a completed act and cannot be treated as a continuing wrong. The impugned order violates section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which mandates dismissal of the complaint filed after two years unless sufficient cause was shown. No medical records, unavoidable circumstances or other compelling reasons were furnished to show as to why the complaint could not have been filed within the period of limitation. The observation of the District Commission, ignoring material evidence and shifting the burden on the opposite party was perverse. The District Forum condoned the delay of 5400 days by a single conclusory finding, without a reasoned examination of dates, diligence or evidence. The said finding violates the statutory mandate u/s 69(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. The theory 5 of continuing cause of action was endless. If such was the case, there was no need to file any application to condone delay and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt., Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 103 and the judgement of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Rickers Estates Pvt., Ltd., Vs. M/s Marcrotech Developers Ltd., in NC/CC/4/2024 with NC/IA/17986/2024 and in Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta in RP No.3635/2011.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant on the other hand contended that the District Forum after hearing both the parties passed a rational and reasonable order dated 30.07.2025. The District Forum rightly exercised the doctrine of continuous cause of action. The opposite party had not terminated the agreement of allotment of plot to the respondent/complainant. The affidavit of the petitioner in IA 93/2025 clearly specifies that there was no delay in filing the complaint. The doctrine of continuous cause of action applies, since there was no termination of allotment of the plot. The Revision Petitioner contended about sending the DD, but it was a vague statement without any supporting material evidence of sending DD or refusing to receive the same by the complainant. The revision petitioner failed to prove that there was no agreement of allotment of plots to the complainant and that the same was validly and effectively terminated by them. In the absence of substantial evidence that the complainant refused to receive the DD, it could not be deemed that the agreement of allotment of plot was terminated. Therefore the doctrine of continuous cause of action was subsisting and prayed to dismiss the revision petition with costs.
11. As seen from the rival contentions, the complainant made an application for membership dated 27.01.1994 with respect to allotment of two plots i.e. 18 & 19 admeasuring 250 sq. yards in Block J, East City Sector V and the same was allotted by opposite party vide plot allotment letter dated 31.01.1994. The complainant paid Rs.57,000/- towards cost of the plots but failed to pay development charges as per the terms and conditions of the application for membership. As per the complaint, he paid only an amount of Rs.2,000/- out of Rs.75,000/- towards development charges. The opposite party contended that on default of 6 payment towards development charges and registration charges, it issued several reminders to the complainant to pay outstanding dues. However, there was no response or compliance from the complainant, as such due to continuous default, it had adjusted the amounts paid by the complainant for the two plots as against plot No.19 and cancelled the allotment of plot No.18 and the same was communicated to the complainant. A letter dated 10.05.2017 was issued requesting to clear outstanding dues for Plot No.19 and also informed that in case of default, the said plot allotment also would be cancelled and amount would be refunded after deduction of service charge. But the complainant did not respond, as such, it cancelled the allotment of plot No.19 and issued refund of Rs.49,000/-vide DD, bearing No. 234541, dated 23.02.2008 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Secunderabad Branch along with covering letter and receipt. However, the complainant refused to accept the refund and it was returned.
12. The contention of the respondent/complainant was that he had not received DD or letter as such, there was a continuous cause of action. The District Commission also considered that in the absence of any material to prove that the amount was refunded to the petitioner/counsel, the cause of action was continuous.
13. Under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complaint should be filed within 02 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. But the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of 15 years from the date of cancellation of allotment. The expression "shall not admit a complaint" in Sec.69 is a sort of limitation mandated to the Consumer Fora to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. The doctrine of continuous cause of action applies only when the wrong is recurring or subsisting.
14. The Revision petitioner filed a memo enclosing the documents i.e. the copy of cancellation of plot allotment and refund of advance of East City Membership No.16865 of the complainant vide their letter No.NE/EC/16865/708/2008, dated 26.02.2008; copy of demand draft of State Bank of Hyderabad to the complainant vide DD No.234541, dated 23.02.2008 for an amount of Rs.49,000/-; copy of receipt issued by M/s Narne Estates Pvt., Ltd., to the complainant for payment of Rs.49,000/-
7vide DD No.234541 along with postal covers and acknowledgments, dated 11.03.2008. These documents would disclose that the allotment stood terminated, refund was issued and contractual relationship between the parties ceased. Once cancellation was affected no recurring obligation survived.
15. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant was that the complainant had not received the cancellation letter or Demand Draft. But the postal receipts and acknowledgments filed by the revision petitioner would show that the cancellation letter and DD were returned with an endorsement as "no such person in the said address". But the said address of the complainant was the same address from which the consumer complaint and petition in IA 93/2025 were filed by the complainant. It clearly establishes that the address was correct and the complainant was residing there and that the revision petitioner had taken bonafide steps in communicating cancellation.
16. The revision petitioner cannot be penalized for postal return beyond his control. The complainant remained silent for a long period of 15 years. No legal notice was issued by him between 12.06.2007 to 06.12.2024. As per the version of the complainant he had sent a letter on 12.6.2007 but from that year until 2024 he remained silent. The delay of about 15 years cannot be condoned in a routine manner. No follow-up explanation was shown to have been made by the complainant. No demand for possession and no request for refund was made by him during these 15 years. Such prolonged inaction disentitles the complainant from seeking discretionary relief. The condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a judicial discretion. The condonation petition does not disclose any fraud, concealment, mis-representation, any legal disability or any unavoidable circumstances. Mere denial of receipt of cancellation letter is not a sufficient cause for condoning 15 years delay. Sufficient cause must cover the entire period of delay. No explanation is offered for each year of inaction.
17. The Consumer jurisdiction is summary in nature. It is settled law that highly belated claims cannot be entertained on sympathetic 8 grounds. Law assists the vigilant, but not those who sleep over their rights. The cancellation of allotment is a single completed act giving rise to one time cause of action. It does not constitute a continuous wrong. Allowing unexplained delay is fatal and ought not to have been condoned by the District Commission. It is clearly barred by limitation. The continuous cause doctrine is not applicable. Once, the allotment was cancelled and DD returned and dispatched, the contractual relationship ceased. Non-receipt of refund does not keep cause of action alive indefinitely. When a letter was properly addressed and dispatched, there raises a presumption of service. As the letter was sent to the correct address of the complainant, the revision petitioner discharged its obligation. It creates a strong inference that the complainant avoided service or failed to maintain proper communication for which the revision petitioner cannot be blamed. As such, we find that the impugned order suffers from illegality and material irregularity and the same is liable to be set aside.
18. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad in IA 93/2025 in CC 37/2025 dated 30.07.2025 is set aside. As IA 93/2025 is dismissed, consequently the complaint in CC 37/2025 is rejected.
Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her on the System; corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this the 20th day of February' 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT M EM BER (NON-JUDICIAL)
Dated : 20.02.2026
*AD