Burden Lies On The Complainant To Demonstrate Valid Reason For Delay: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that parties not acting diligently cannot expect leniency in condoning delays and 'sufficient cause' is a prerequisite for condoning delays.

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainants booked a 350 sq. yd. plot in the Future Township Project TDI City/builder and paid Rs. 5,42,500, which was 20% of the basic price, by cheque. They opted for a payment plan that required a further 10% at the time of allotment, followed by 10% every two months, with the final 10% due at possession. The builder requested the balance payment early and sent reminders, citing financial constraints. Despite making several payments, the builder later issued communications indicating a much higher amount due, which did not accurately reflect the payments made by the complainants. Eventually, the builder canceled the allotment of the plot. Feeling aggrieved, the complainants filed a complaint with the State Commission, seeking restoration of the plot at the original cost, along with interest and compensation for mental distress. The builder did not respond to the complaint. However, the State Commission dismissed the complaint, stating it was barred by limitation as there was a delay in filing the complaint.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the law of limitation mandates that any delay in filing a complaint must be adequately explained, and this explanation should be rational and reasonable. The complainants claimed that the cause of action was ongoing. In State Bank of India vs. B S Agriculture Industries, the Supreme Court stated that consumer forums must ensure complaints are filed within two years from the cause of action, but they can condone delays if sufficient cause is demonstrated. The Commission emphasized that it is the duty of the consumer forum to apply the law of limitation strictly, and if a complaint is time-barred, it cannot be heard on its merits. The complainants failed to provide adequate reasons for their delay in approaching the State Commission, and the Supreme Court's ruling in R.B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari highlighted that parties not acting diligently cannot expect leniency in condoning delays. Furthermore, in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, it was noted that showing sufficient cause is a prerequisite for condoning delays. The burden lies on the complainants to demonstrate that they had a valid reason for their delay. The Supreme Court in Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer defined 'sufficient cause' as one that prevents a party from acting due to unavoidable circumstances. The court also clarified that inconvenience does not justify extending limitation periods. In Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of timely adjudication in consumer matters, stating that a lengthy delay undermines the intent of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainants did not provide adequate reasons for their delay in approaching the State Commission after receiving the cancellation notice for their plot, leading to a year-long delay in filing the complaint.

Consequently, the National Commission concluded that the complainants did not act on their rights in a timely manner and upheld the State Commission's decision to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation.

Case Title: Mahboob Alam Qureshi & Anr Vs. M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: F.A. No. 1494/2017

Click Here To Read/Download Order