Barred By Limitation, Telangana State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Real Estate Firm

Brief Facts:

The complainant was convinced by a Marketing Executive of JEC to join a scheme and was given two housing plots upon joining but was not provided with any documents regarding the scheme. Further, JEC obtained his signatures on some printed papers and instructed him not to visit their office, instead their employees would come to collect installment payments.

The complainant made regular payments totaling Rs. 3,04,000/- over two years, however, he later decided to withdraw from the scheme and requested a refund, but the JEC delayed in returning the amount. After sending a legal notice demanding a refund with interest, the JEC replied that the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions by signing the membership form. However, the complainant stated that the JEC did not provide any explanation or a separate sheet of terms and conditions to the complainant before obtaining his signature and clearly indicating a deficiency of service on the part of JEC.

JEC countered by denying any inducement and stating that the complainant willingly enrolled in the scheme. They acknowledged receiving a total payment of Rs. 3,04,000/- from the complainant, however the same were in irregular installments, which deviated from the agreed terms and conditions. According to JEC, the complainant was supposed to pay a total of Rs. 3,06,000/- including developmental charges, but failed to adhere to the payment schedule and made their last installment in 2010.

JEC argued that the complainant could only claim a deficiency of service if JEC failed to register the plots after full payment or if there were defects in the property's title and requested the District Commission to dismiss the complaint.

Decision of the District Commission:

After reviewing the evidence, the District Commission partially allowed the complaint and ordered JEC to refund the entire amount collected with interest at 18% per annum, calculated from the respective payment dates to the date of payment. Additionally, JEC was directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- as the costs of the complaint.

Contentions of JEC:

JEC appealed to the State Commission, arguing that the District Commission's order was arbitrary, lacked jurisdiction, and failed to apply judicial discretion. It contended that the complaint should have been rejected due to being barred by limitation and pointed out that according to Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint must be filed within two years from the date the cause of action arises. Further, it stated that as per Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, any suit, appeal, or application filed after the prescribed period should be dismissed, even if the limitation defense was not raised. JEC claimed that the District Commission failed to consider the aspect of limitation and disregarded the complainant's acknowledgment of its inability to continue with the monthly installments. It argued that the District Commission's observations regarding certain evidence were unfounded, and the awarded rate of interest and compensation was excessive. JEC asserted that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious which the District Commission failed to recognize.

Observations of the State Commission:

The State Commission observed that the District Commission failed to address the fact that the complainant had delayed exercising his rights for a significant period before filing the complaint. The Consumer Protection Act clearly specifies a limitation period for filing a consumer complaint and any abnormal delay must be properly substantiated for the Commission to consider condoning it. In this case, the complainant's explanation, stating that they continuously approached JEC for a refund and issued a legal notice in 2016 when there was no response, was deemed unsatisfactory. The District Commission erred by not discussing the crucial aspect and instead concluding that JEC printed the terms and conditions to deceive innocent individuals into becoming members.

After considering the factual aspects, the State Commission concluded the complaint to be time-barred and stated that in the absence of any formal condonation of delay, the delay of 2381 days cannot be excused. It is emphasized that once the limitation period begins, no event, inability, or disability can stop it, as stated in Section 9 of the Limitation Act. It also highlighted the recent NCDRC's judgment in the case of Manya Infra-Build Well Pvt., Ltd. vs Muzammil Lahmad in 2020. In that case, there was a delay of 355 days in filing the appeal, and it was decided that the appellant had not acted with reasonable diligence and failed to show reasonable grounds for the delay.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by dismissing the original complaint as well as the orders of the District Commission.

Case: Janaharsha Estates “N” Constructions Pvt., Ltd. vs B.Ramchander Reddy

Counsel for Complainant: K.Mallesh

Counsel for Appellant: Sri N.S.V.NageswaraRao

Click Here To Read/Download Order