Law Of Limitation Must Be Strictly Followed As Prescribed, Despite Potential Harshness: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant, influenced by an advertisement from the Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority/Development Authority, applied for a plot in 'Gateway City' and paid the earnest money. They were allotted a plot after paying a total of ₹18,76,770. However, the complainant discovered the site was uninhabitable, misleadingly depicted, and located in a riverbed area, with no allotment letter issued. The complainant requested an alternative plot or a refund, eventually filing a consumer complaint seeking either an alternative plot or a refund with interest. GMADA was identified as the developer, with M/s EMMAR Land Limited as the landowner. Despite being offered a plot, the complainant refused and demanded a full refund. The development authority refunded ₹11,05,420 after deductions. Alleging unfair trade practices, the complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission, Punjab, seeking the remaining balance of ₹7,71,350 with 18% interest per annum, damages for mental agony, and litigation costs. The complaint was dismissed, and the complainant appealed against the State Commission's order before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The development authority contested the complaint, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. They argued the complainant did not qualify as a 'consumer' and alleged the plot was bought for speculative purposes. They acknowledged the application and payment for the plot but denied land encroachment, stating the plot location was accurately depicted. It was claimed that the issue arose from the complainant's failure to make further payments and offered an alternative plot. They alleged the complainant violated terms by not completing installments and emphasized non-compliance with refund procedures despite multiple communications.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the applicant must present a case showing sufficient reasons that prevented them from approaching the Court/Commission within the stipulated limitation period. The commission highlighted the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, which held that even after sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as a matter of right. The commission emphasized the Supreme Court's decision in Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, which defined 'sufficient cause' and stated that the court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. The commission observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied rigorously when the statute prescribes, and the court has no power to extend the limitation period on equitable grounds. The commission highlighted the Supreme Court's decision in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, which advised Consumer Forums to keep in mind the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act while dealing with such applications. In this case, the Commission did not find the delay to be a “sufficient cause” and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Bikram Singh Vs. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority

Case Number: F.A. No. 704/2020