State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Ankush Gupta vs M/S Omaxe Limited on 21 October, 2024
MR. ANKUSH GUPTA VS. M/S OMAXE LTD.
21.10.2024 IA-2267-24 IN CC-128/24 Vide this order we shall dispose of an application for condonation of delay, filed on behalf of the Complainant seeking to condone the delay in filing the complaint.
The present complaint was initially filed with the District Commission on November 26, 2013. However, the District Commission returned the complaint on March 26, 2024, citing lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, as the value of the flat/plot and the relief sought exceeded its limits. Subsequently, the Complainant refiled the complaint on August 8, 2024, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party. Along with the complaint, the Complainant submitted an application requesting the condonation of any delay. The Complainant asserted that the failure to file the complaint within the prescribed timeframe was neither intentional nor deliberate.
The issue before us is whether the present complaint is barred by law of limitation.
It is imperative to refer to Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 wherein it is provided as under:-
"69. Limitation period.-
(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified PAGE 1 OF 3 in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint as this such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
Analysis of Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 leads us to the conclusion that this Commission is empowered to admit a complaint if it is filed within a period of 2 years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Mehnga Singh Khera and Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. as reported in I (2020) CPJ 93 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that failure to give possession of flat is continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action and as long as the possession is not delivered to the buyers, they have every cause, grievance and right to approach the consumer courts."
Returning to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the possession of the flat in question is still not handed over by the Opposite Party to the Complainants. Applying the above law, it is clear that the Complainant has a recurrent cause of action to approach this commission till the possession of the flat is not handed over to them.
Issue Notice to the Opposite Party through registered post and speed post.
PAGE 2 OF 3 The Complainant may also send notice to the Opposite Party via WhatsApp and E-mail. This is in addition to the already existing modes of service in order to ensure an expedited process. A copy of complaint be also sent alongwth the notice.
Notice shall also be given dasti also and the complainant will ensure that the copy of the complaint is also annexed with the notice.
Subsequently, the complainant shall file an affidavit deposing about the proof of service of the notice upon the Opposite Party.
Re-list on 23.12.2024.
(Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal) President (Pinki) Member (Judicial) LR-SM PAGE 3 OF 3