The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Shri Bharatkumar Pandya, has dismissed a consumer complaint against M/s LGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., holding that the complaint was barred by limitation.

The Commission observed that the alleged wrong arose in 2021, while the claim of discovering the property's actual valuation only in 2025 was an “excuse” rather than an acceptable explanation for the delay.

Facts:

The complainant, Hamid Hussain Banday, had booked and purchased Row House No. 14 in the project “LGCL Beautiful World” in Bengaluru, Karnataka, developed by M/s LGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd. For the purchase, he obtained a ₹2.99 crore loan from the State Bank of India (SBI), which was disbursed to the developer. He also made payments totalling ₹4.35 crore. A sale deed in respect of the property was executed on 7 January 2021.

The complainant alleged that despite execution of the sale deed, physical possession of the property was not handed over to him. Thereafter, he defaulted in repayment of the SBI loan, resulting in recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. He was contesting SBI's recovery proceedings in OA No. 87 of 2024.

According to the complainant, while attending the recovery proceedings on 3 March 2025, he came to know that SBI had already taken possession of the property pursuant to an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 1 April 2023. He thereafter sought to inspect the property physically and claimed that he discovered that its actual valuation was much lower than the amount he had paid.

He alleged that the developer and the bank had indulged in unfair trade practice by showing an incorrect/high value of the property, allegedly enabling the release of a higher loan amount. On this basis, he claimed that the cause of action arose on 3 March 2025 and filed the consumer complaint before the NCDRC.

Observation and decision:

The NCDRC observed that the property had been purchased through a sale deed dated 7 January 2021 and was mortgaged to SBI against the loan obtained by the complainant. The Commission held that the complainant was fully aware of the transaction and the property's value at the time of execution of the sale deed and disbursal of the loan. It further noted that the complainant was working in Saudi Arabia and could not be regarded as a layperson unaware of the valuation and financial aspects of the transaction.

The Commission rejected the complainant's claim that he discovered the property's actual valuation only on 3 March 2025, holding that this was an “excuse” rather than a satisfactory explanation for the delay. It also noted that the complainant was already aware of the SARFAESI proceedings and the possession of the property taken pursuant to the competent authority's order in 2023.

The Commission, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, held that the complainant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for filing the complaint beyond the prescribed two-year limitation period under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Accordingly, the Commission held that the complaint was barred by limitation and dismissed it as time-barred.

Case Title: Hamid Hussain Banday v. M/s LGCL Properties Private Limited & Ors.

Case No.: NC/CC/168/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order