Mumbai: The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has admitted a case despite a 22-year delay, citing a “continuous cause of action” against a builder and his partner.
The case, filed by retired couple Ajit Ganpat Kurlye and Anagha Ajit Kurlye, was against M/s Saraswati Builders and its partner Mr. Pradeep Nandlal Gupta, for failing to deliver possession of a flat booked in 1993. The Commission not only admitted the case but directed the duo to hand over possession of the flat at the originally agreed 1995 price, and awarded additional compensation.
About The Case
The Kurlye couple, post-retirement, had sought a peaceful life and booked a 525 sq. ft. flat in Prem-Nagar Complex, Kharegaon, Kalwa, paying an initial sum of Rs. 500 in 1993. They later issued a cheque of Rs. 42,000 on November 12, 1993, followed by an advance cash payment of Rs. 1,05,000, for which they were not given a receipt. Despite entering a formal agreement on January 26, 1994, with the promise of possession by March 1995, the builder and his partner failed to register the sale agreement or deliver the flat.
The complainants repeatedly approached the duo, who assured them the delay was due to litigation. After years of waiting, the couple filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission in 2018.
The defence team of the duo argued that the complaint was barred by limitation, given the 22-year delay in filing. They noted that under the Consumer Protection Act, cases must be filed within two years from the date of cause of action, and no formal request had been made to condone such a long delay.
Commission Rules In Favor Of The Complainants
However, the Commission ruled in favor of the complainants, stating that the builder’s failure to register the agreement and deliver possession was a “continuing cause of action,” thus keeping the claim alive. The Commission cited Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, which imposes statutory obligations on developers, and held that the violation of these obligations made the complaint within the permissible time limit.
The Commission ordered the duo to hand over possession of the flat within 45 days at the agreed-upon 1995 rate. Additionally, they are also directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000 in compensation for the couple’s mental anguish and Rs. 50,000 towards litigation costs. Should the flat be unavailable, the developer must provide an alternative flat of the same size in the same vicinity under the same terms.
