State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Krishna Naskar vs Raj Kumar Singh on 13 January, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/302/2022
Smt. Krishna Naskar
PRESENT ADDRESS - W/o, Raju Naskar. Mahadebpur, Jalkal, P.S.- Maheshtala, Kolkata- 700
141.,WEST BENGAL.
Subharanjan Naskar
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o, Sri Shyamal Kumar Naskar. Puratan Dakghar, P.S.- Maheshtala,
Dist- South 24 Parganas, Kolkata- 700 141. ,WEST BENGAL.
Sri Shyamal Kumar Naskar
PRESENT ADDRESS - Mahadebpur, Puratan Dakghar, P.S.- Maheshtala, Kolkata- 700 141.
,WEST BENGAL.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
Raj Kumar Singh
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o, Sri Udho Singh. Flat No.- 3, 3rd Floor, 30, New Sreema Properties
Road, P.S.- Maheshtala, Kolkata- 700 141. ,WEST BENGAL.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr. Barun Prasad, Mr. Subrata Mondal, Mr. Sovanlal Bera (Advocate)
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Abhijit Mukherjee,Amit Nath,Biswadeep Roy Chowdhury (Advocate)
DATED: 13/01/2026
ORDER
with SC/19/A/301/2022 Smt.Krishna Naskar Subharanjan Naskar Sri Shyamal Kumar Naskar .........Appellant(s) Versus Satyadeo Singh .....Respondent(s) with SC/19/A/303/2022 Smt.Krishna Naskar Subharanjan Naskar Sri Shyamal Kumar Naskar .........Appellant(s) Versus Ashok Singh .....Respondent(s) with SC/19/A/306/2022 Smt.Krishna Naskar Subharanjan Naskar Sri Shyamal Kumar Naskar .........Appellant(s) Versus Dharambir Singh ..............Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE, PRESIDENT
1. In as much as these four appeals are bound by a commonality of legal questions, hereby unified for resolution through this singular, comprehensive judgement.
2. BRIEF FACTS :
All four complaints were filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South 24 Parganas, Baruipur, Kolkata 700 144 (hereinafter referred to as D.C.D.R.C.). All the four complaints were submitted by different persons against the same Opposite Party/Appellant herein with respect to identical property under the name and style of Shreema Properties Project allotted Plot No.19 & 20 comprising in R.S. and L.R. Dag No. 16 & 18 both appertaining to R.S. Khatian No.361 and L.R. Khatian No.4440 and 4325 lying and situated at Mouza Ganipur, within the limits of Maheshtala Municipality, Ward No.17, being holding no.F3-30, New Sreema Properties Road, P.S. Maheshtala, District South 24 Parganas, alleging inter alia that the complainants received the delivery of possession of their respective flats without Completion Certificate and in incomplete condition.
3. The Appellant/OP entered in appearance in all the cases by filing Written Version (hereinafter referred to as W/V) and after submission of respective evidences, Ld. District Forum disposed of all the complaint petitions being No.CC/67/2020, CC/68/2020, CC/69/2020 & CC/70/2020, on 17th November, 2022 directing the Appellant/OP to provide Completion Certificate to the Complainant and to finish all incomplete works in the respective schedule flats in terms of agreements for Sale dated 10.07.2013 and Deeds of Conveyance dt.10.04.2014 within 60 days from the date of Order failing which, OPs shall jointly and severally have to pay Rs.1000/- per diem to the Complainant after expiry of 60 days till the date of realization alongwith a direction to refund Rs.25,53,600/- alongwith simple interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 10.07.2013 till final realization, within 60 days from the date of this Order.
OPs were further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh for deficiency in service, mental pain etc. within 60 days from the date of passing Order alongwith litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
4. Argument Advanced :
Ld. Counsel Mr. Barun Prosad appearing on behalf of the Appellant has contended that all four complaint petitions were filed before the jurisdictional D.C.D.R.C. alongwith applications U/S 69(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and U/S 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. But the Ld. D.C.D.R.C. disposed of all four Complaint Petitions by delivering four separate judgments ignoring both the applications U/S 69(2) and 35(1)(c) of the Act, 2019.
5. In support of his contention, Mr. Prosad relied on the following cases:-
i) Vicraant Abhishek Kela and Ors. -vs- Selene Construction Limited reported in 2019 (V-4) CPR 258(NC)
ii) Piyush Goel and Anr. - vs - DLF Home Developers reported in 2018 (V-1) CPR 687 (NC)
iii) Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. -vs- Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
reported in 2016(V-4) CPR 83 (NC) In opposition to that, Ld. Counsel Mr. Abhijit Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the Respondents, in his usual fairness, has submitted that DCDRC ought to have disposed of both the applications U/S 69(2) and Application U/S 35(1)(c) of the Act, 2019, before disposal of the complaint petition, and accordingly he has submitted that the case should be remanded back for disposal of the complaint petition after disposal of the application u/s 69(2) and 35(1)(c) of the Act, 2019.
DECISION :
6. We have gone through the cases relied on behalf of Mr. Prosad. In Piyush Goel (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission held that Consumer Complaint has to be filed within a period of two years of cause of action in terms of provision of Section 24 (A) of the Act, 1986 {Section 69(2) of 2019} and a Consumer complained filed beyond the period of limitations is liable to be rejected.
7. In Ambrish Kumar Shukla, the principle was handed down that the primary object behind permitting a Class action such as a complaint u/s 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being to facilitate the decision of a Consumer Dispute in which a large number of consumers are interested, without records to each of them filing an individual complaint, it is necessary that such a complaint is filed on behalf of all for the benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest.
8. The procedural integrity of the consumer dispute resolution continues to rely on strict adherence to the Consumer Protection act, 1986 (where applicable to pending cases) and its successor. Admission of a complaint without disposing of application U/S 24(A) {Section 69 (2) of the Act, 2019} or Section 12(1)(c) {Section 35(1)(c) of the Act} creates significant legal vulnerabilities.
9. U/S 69(2) of the 2019 Act (Formerly Section 24 (A) of the 1986 Act), a Consumer Forum must not admit a complaint filed more than two years after cause of action unless "Sufficient Cause" is shown and recorded in writing. Admitting a time barred complaint without condoning a delay is jurisdictional error. Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that limitation period is mandatory deciding a case on its merit when it is barred by time constitutes and illegally.
10. Section 35(1)(c) of the Act, 2019, {12 (1)(c) of the Act, 1986} allows one or more consumer to file a complaint on behalf of numerous consumers having a same interest. If such application to proceed in representative capacity is not disposed of at the admission stage, the complaint may not legally represent the entire "Class" of consumers intended. Without formal permission for a representative suit, the Forum may lack authority to grant collective relief, potentially remedy any future award to only individual and named complainant.
11. Admittedly in all the 4 cases, the complainants filed the applications U/S 69(2) of the Act, 2019 with a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the Complaint cases and also an Application U/S 35(1) (c) of the Act, 2019, seeking permission to file representative complaint. But in all cases, Ld. jurisdictional DCDRC did not dispose of those petitions before admission of the complaints. Thereby, the Ld. DCDRC has committed a manifest and gross procedural impropriety by admitting complaint in a state of jurisdictional vacuum; specifically, by failing to adjudicate the mandatory application for condonation of delay U/S 69(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and requisite application for representative standing U/S 35(1)(c) of the Act, 2019 as indispensable prerequisites to the initiation of proceedings.
12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, all Orders passed in connection with aforesaid Complaint Cases are hereby set aside. In effect, all four appeals are allowed.
13. All the cases are remanded back to the Jurisdictional DCDRC with a request to dispose of the applications U/S 69(2) of the Act, 2019 and the Application U/S 35(1)(c) of the Act, 2019 before admission of the complaint cases referred to above.
14. Let a copy of this Order be communicated to the Jurisdictional DCDRC.
15. Office to comply.
..................J BIBHAS RANJAN DE PRESIDENT ..................
MRIDULA ROY MEMBER