NCDRC Dismisses Consumer Complaint Filed Nearly 10 Years After Possession, Holds Claim Barred By Limitation
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, dismissed a consumer complaint against a developer and housing society as barred by limitation, holding that the cause of action arose when possession was taken in 2016 and could not be treated as a continuing cause of action merely because alleged deficiencies were discovered later.
The Commission held that the complaint, filed in 2026, was clearly beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and therefore not maintainable.
Brief facts of the Case:
The complainants, Pradip Sonavane and his wife, filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service against DSSD Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., its representatives, and Shree Nandadeep Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Limited in relation to a redevelopment project named “Shri Nandadeep Bhavan.”
They had entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 20 December 2013 for purchase of Flat No. 701 admeasuring about 989 sq. ft. carpet area for a consideration of ₹2,89,47,828. A parking slot was allotted on 14 April 2016, and possession of the flat was offered on 31 August 2016, which they accepted. The complainants admitted that the flat was rented out as one of them was residing abroad, and they began residing there themselves only after 2024.
The complainants alleged that the allotted parking space was defective and inconvenient due to an uncovered manhole and limited maneuvering space. They also relied on a private architect's report dated 28 August 2025 alleging discrepancies in carpet area and construction deviations.
Based on these allegations, the complainants approached the Commission in 2026 seeking relief against the developer and the housing society.
Contentions of the Opposite Parties
The opposite parties contested the complaint on the ground of limitation, submitting that possession had been handed over in August 2016 and the complaint was filed nearly ten years later. They argued that any alleged deficiencies would have been apparent at the time of possession and that the complaint was barred under the Consumer Protection Act.
They also denied allegations of deficiency in service and disputed claims relating to parking and carpet area discrepancies.
Observation and Decision:
The Commission considered limitation as a preliminary issue and observed that the Agreement for Sale was executed in 2013 and possession was admittedly taken in 2016. It noted that the complainants had not raised any grievance regarding parking space or carpet area at the time of possession or within the period provided under the agreement.
The Commission rejected the complainants' argument that the cause of action arose in 2025 based on the architect's report or legal notices, holding that the cause of action had clearly arisen when possession was taken in 2016. It further held that the alleged deficiencies could not be treated as a continuing cause of action and that limitation could not be extended merely because the complainants later discovered or asserted defects.
The Commission reiterated that Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandates that consumer complaints must be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises, unless sufficient cause is shown for delay, which was not established in the present case.
The Commission also relied on Supreme Court precedents including SBI v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), HUDA v. B.K. Sood, Union of India v. British India Corporation Ltd., Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary, and Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that limitation must be examined at the threshold.
Holding that the complaint was clearly barred by limitation and that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay, the Commission dismissed the complaint without examining the merits.
Case Title: Pradip Sonavane & Anr. v. DSSD Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: NC/CC/13/2026