The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A.P. Sahi, held that a consumer complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the act, and sufficient reason needs to be given for the condonation of the said delay. Brief Facts of the Case The complainants had purchased plots from the respondents/vendor that were intended for future requirements...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A.P. Sahi, held that a consumer complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the act, and sufficient reason needs to be given for the condonation of the said delay.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainants had purchased plots from the respondents/vendor that were intended for future requirements in the year 1984. The complainant argued that the sale deeds pertained to non-existent land, indicating an absence of title and identity. The complainants filed a complaint in the State Commission of Telangana, which held that the dispute over the sale deed of non-existent property was to be settled by the civil court, not the consumer forum. Consequently, the complainants appealed to the National Commission.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the State Commission should have taken the presence of the limitation clause into account and dismissed the complaint. The commission cited Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd.(2022), wherein it was held that a continuing wrong occurs when a party continuously breaches an obligation imposed by law or agreement. This case involved a continuing breach related to obtaining an occupancy certificate. However, in the present case, the land was purchased in 1984, and the complainants claimed to have learned about the disputed status of the land only in 2018, filing complaints in 2020. The commission found it unreasonable to wait 34 years to discover the land's status. The complaint was filed 36 years after the sale deeds without sufficient explanation for the delay. Furthermore, there was no evidence of possession delivery or any attempt to recover possession for over three decades. The cause of action arose long ago, and the inaction of the complainants could not overcome the limitation period under Section 24A of the 1986 Act. The breach occurred in 1984, and there was no obligation as possession of land with no title was impossible. The commission observed that the delay made the complaint barred by limitation, a jurisdictional fact the State Commission should have determined as per the referenced judgment.
Consequently, the National Commission dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Shri. Devulapalli Venkate Swara Rao Vs. Pochambavi China Janga Reddy
Case Number: F.A. No. 136/2024