Failure To Deliver Possession Constitutes Continuos Wrong Unless Delivery Is Refused: Delhi State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Ansal Township Citing Limitation Period

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant booked an apartment in the “Megapolis” project of Ansal Township/builder by paying Rs. 5,10,000 towards the plot. Later, she requested the builder to update her address, and she discovered her plot had been canceled due to non-payment. Despite her efforts to resolve the issue with the builder, including legal notices for a refund with interest, no resolution was reached. The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission and sought directions for the builder to pay Rs. 5,10,000 with 18% annual interest. Additionally, the complainant sought compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 and litigation expenses totaling Rs. 50,000.

Contentions of the Builder

The builder contested the case and raised objections regarding its maintainability. The builder argued that the complaint should be dismissed on the grounds of limitation because the booking was canceled on specific dates due to non-payment, and the complaint was filed more than four years after the cancellation. Additionally, the builder cited an arbitration clause in the allotment letter, questioning the commission's jurisdiction. The builder further contended that despite multiple reminders for payment, the complainant failed to fulfill the payment obligations as per the allotment terms. The builder asserted that the complainant's updated address was duly recorded, and all communication regarding payment reminders was sent to this updated address. Therefore, the builder requested the dismissal of the complaint based on these objections.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission examined whether the complaint fell within the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The builder contended that the complaint filed more than four years after the cancellation of the plot booking was time-barred under Section 24A of the Act. Citing Mehnga Singh Khera vs. Unitech Ltd., the commission noted that failure to deliver possession constitutes a continuous wrong, allowing complaints until possession is refused. Consequently, the commission found that the builder refused possession, making the case liable to be dismissed upon limitation. Therefore, the commission dismissed the complaint as time-barred under Section 24A.

Case Title: Ms. Sumita Saxena Vs. M/S Ansal HI- Tech Township Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No. 1431/2018