Fresh Period Of Limitation Runs At Every Moment During A Continuing Breach, NCDRC Dismisses Revision Petition Filed By Taneja Developers
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Mr Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited on preliminary grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction and period of limitation. The NCDRC noted that 7 years had passed after the State Commission's order and remanding the matter back due to a technical error would not serve the ends of justice. Further, the NCDRC held that in case of a “continuing breach”, the period of limitation runs at every moment. Hence, the complaint was held to be filed within the period of limitation as even though the last payment was made 5 years ago by the Complainant, the allotment was not done till the date of the complaint.
Brief Facts:
Shilpa Mehtani (“Complainant”) had booked a 2-bedroom flat in a future project of M/S Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited (“Developer”). The Complainant made several payments in part, totalling Rs. 7,33,072/-. However, allegedly, the Developer failed to provide her with an Allotment Letter despite multiple communications. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat, Haryana (“District Commission”). The District Commission partially allowed the complaint and ordered the Developer to refund the entire amount along with a 10% per annum interest from the date of filing the complaint until realization. However, the Complainant filed an appeal with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (“State Commission”), for the allotment of the unit at the rate prevailing at the time it was booked or, in the alternative, interest on the deposited amount. The State Commission disposed of the appeal with a slight modification of the date of interest. As a result, the Developer filed a revision petition with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”).
The Developer argued that the State Commission failed to acknowledge their preliminary objection concerning the jurisdiction of the District Commission. They also contended that the State Commission's order was based on speculation rather than concrete evidence, particularly regarding the modification of the refund timeline set by the District Commission. Furthermore, they stressed the importance of pecuniary jurisdiction, given that the primary relief sought was related to allotment. The Developer pointed out that the Complainant failed to comply with the T&C of the Advance Registration Form (ARF) by not clearing the outstanding dues for the flat in question. Lastly, they highlighted the significant delay in the Complainant's actions, as the last deposit was made in February 2008, and the complaint was filed in July 2013, a gap of over 5 years.
Observations by the Commission:
Firstly, the NCDRC rejected the developer's objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction. Although the NCDRC observed that the total cost of the unit was Rs 16,50,000/- and the Complainant's claim for compensation was beyond the pecuniary limit of the State Commission, it noted that there has been almost seven years since the order was passed by the State Commission and remanding the case back to it due to technical error would be against the interest of justice.
Secondly, the Developer's objection regarding the bar of limitation was rejected. The NCDRC held that since the Developer had failed to allot the flat to the Complainant until the date of the complaint and thus, the breach was continuous. The NCDRC placed reliance on the case of Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 103, where it was held that in the cases of a continuing breach, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment during which the breach continues. As a result, the NCDRC found the complaint to be within the limitation period, dismissing this objection.
In light of the above considerations, the NCDRC ruled that there was a clear deficiency of service on the part of the Developer, as they had not provided the Complainant with an Allotment Letter despite receiving payments. Consequently, the NCDRC upheld the order of the State Commission and directed the Developer to refund the entire deposited amount of Rs. 7,33,072/- along with a delay compensation of 9% per annum (simple interest) from the respective dates of deposits until the realization of the amount within 10 weeks from the date of the order. In case of any delay in payment beyond this period, the interest rate was set at 12% per annum. Additionally, the Developer was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation costs.
Case Title: Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Shilpa Mehtani
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 1769 Of 2016
Advocate for the Developer/Petitioner: Ms Snehal Kaila, Proxy Counsel for Mr Vaibhav Agnihotri
Advocate for the Complainant/Respondent: Mr. Anshul Gupta and Mr. Shubham Kaushik