1.      This complaint under section 58(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, the ‘Act’) has been filed against the opposite party alleging harassment and deficiency in service in cancellation of one residential unit and returning part of the payment made and not refunding the payment received in respect of other apartments booked by him in five different projects of the opposite party. This order will also dispose of Consumer Complaint No. 140 of 2022 which pertains to the same respondent and is based on similar set of facts.

2.     The facts, as per the complainant, are that he had booked residential apartments in the following projects promoted by the opposite party: Raheja Atlantis, Raheja Revanta, Raheja Vedanta, Raheja Atharva, Raheja Sector 99 and Raheja Panipat and paid the total sale consideration. He alleges that the opposite party defrauded him since the said flats had already been sold/transferred to third parties much before.  A Flat Buyers’ Agreement was entered into between the parties, the records of which are with opposite party no. 3. It is submitted that the cause of action is still open as the flats have not been delivered to him and his family members in whose names the bookings were done as per judgment of this Commission in Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Unitech Limited, III (2015) CPJ 440 (NC). Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narne Construction Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 359. It is the complainant’s case that since he has exhausted all remedies for the possession of flats before the Sr. Town Planner, Gurgaon and DCIT (Income Tax) he has approached this Commission praying to grant:

(i)     an award against the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for the sum of Rs 25,84,95,898/- together with interest @ 18%;

(ii)    relief in favour of complainant and thereupon opposite parties as such liable to pay Rs 50,00,000/- each apart from the amount of Flat for defraud, deficiency in service of OPs; and

(iii)    any other relief(s) that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted to the complainant.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 by way of a written statement/reply. Preliminary objections were taken that the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation as the complaint related to a transaction which was dated 07.11.2007 and was cancelled on 29.06.2010 through a letter and was accepted without protest by the complainant. As per section 24(A) of the Act, 1986 the complaint should have been filed at best within 2 years. The complaint filed on 14.07.2022 was, therefore, inadmissible. It was also contended that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ under the Act as booking of six residential flats by him was clearly for a commercial purpose and that the burden of proof lay on the complainant to disprove this. Further, it was contended that the complaint was not a consumer as no cogent evidence had been brought on record to prove the allegations made. It was contended that the complainant was ‘forum shopping’ as he had already filed a criminal complaint before the Economic Offences Wing on 01.07.2022 against the opposite party. The opposite parties contend that no service was rendered within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) of the Act as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 711 and that there was no agreement for rendering of a ‘service’ since there was an agreement for ‘sale’ of apartment/plot. No case was made out, according to the opposite parties for unfair trade practice in the absence of any allegation regarding promotion of the alleged service. It is averred that the matter required detailed adjudication of the claim and was therefore precluded from the summary jurisdiction of the Act. Finally, it was urged that under the Act relief of interest was not permissible and that compensation can be awarded only if loss is proved due to negligence. The complaint was also opposed on merits.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record carefully. On the preliminary objection of limitation, the complainant prayed for and was provided a further opportunity to file an explanation for the reasons for and the quantum of delay even though an application for condonation of delay had been filed by him since this application did not provide details. A supplementary affidavit was filed by the complainant on 05.04.2023. However, this affidavit while admitting a delay of 2188 days in the filing of the complaint only sought to explain the delay on the ground that since a new agreement had been entered into on 29.06.2010 under which possession was to be handed over by December 2013, with grace period up to June 2014, the cause of action continued since then and that he had been waiting for the flats to be handed over. Learned counsel for the opposite party confined his arguments to the inordinate delay in the filing of the complaint and the absence of any affidavit in justification of the delay and argued that the complaint be dismissed in limine on the ground that delay could not be condoned.

5.      Admittedly, the complainant filed this complaint after 2188 days. The application for the condonation of delay in filing the complaint dated 29.06.2022 and the supplementary affidavit dated 05.04.2023 filed as per direction of this Commission merely state that the delay be condoned as the complainant was awaiting an offer of possession after the fresh agreement was entered into on 29.06.2010. However, no evidence of any agreement of this date has been filed. As a matter of fact, no documents have been filed by the complainant to support any of his averments of the booking of the apartments/plot with any other supporting evidence of payment receipts, acknowledgements, agreements between the parties indicating any commitment or assurance of date on handing over of the apartments/plot. Under the Act the complainant is required to establish deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in order to establish a claim for relief. In the absence of any evidence brought on record by the complainant, this complaint does not establish any case of deficiency or unfair trade practice.

6.      Addressing at the very outset the preliminary issue of limitation under section 24 (A) of the Act, it is significant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission have held in a catena of judgments that the Consumer Protection Act is a welfare legislation intended to provide relief against the use of unfair trade practices as well as to ensure that there is no deficiency of service for consumers who pay a consideration against a reasonable expectation of goods and/or services.  Keeping in view the special nature of the legislation, the Act also provides a special provision for the time allowed to avail remedies under the Act.

7.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 459 and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 and Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2012 (2) CPC 3 has considered this issue and held that condonation of delay by Consumer fora must keep the special period of limitation provided in view of the objective of expeditious disposal. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhuvaneswari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition” ; and in  D.Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2007) 2 SCC 322 that “court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006 dated 08.07.2010, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi & Ors., AIR 1994 Punjab & Haryana 45 and Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 it was held that even after sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to condonation of delay as a matter of right.

8.      In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the complaint is barred by limitation. No reasons, explanation or justification have been provided in support of the inordinate delay in the filing of this complaint. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority vs B K Sood, Appeal (Civil) no. 6572 of 2005 dated 26.10.2005, keeping in view the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, no latitude is provided to Consumer Fora to condone such delays. It is manifest from the application of the complainant as well as from the supplementary application for seeking condonation of delay that no cogent or valid justification to explain the delay has been brought on record. Accordingly, the application for the condonation of delay as well as the supplementary affidavit are rejected. For the foregoing reasons the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. As the case fails at the threshold of limitation, the matter is not considered on merits.

10.    The complaint is ordered to be dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000/- to be deposited by the complainant in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 8 weeks of this order.  

11.    C.C. No. 140 of 2022 is also ordered disposed of in the above terms.