NCDRC: When The Matter Is Barred By Time, The National Commission Could Not Have Dealt With The Merits Of The Matter

A division bench of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) comprising C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Subhash Chandra (Member), set aside the State Commission’s order wherein it proceeded with a first appeal by going into the merits of the case, whereas the question was whether or not the suit was barred by limitation. The NCDRC ordered the State Commission to consider the matter afresh based on the objections raised and follow a summary approach.Brief Facts:The petitioner’s case is that the respondent had registered for allotment of a residential plot in the petitioner’s project named ‘TDI City’ by paying an amount of Rs. 5,95,000/-. A time bound payment plan was agreed upon whereby the respondent was required to make periodical payments. Later, the respondent did not execute the Plot Buyers Agreement with the petitioner despite the admitted service of a letter forwarding the same. The respondent was also required to pay the balance amount of External Development Charges (EDC) to the petitioner. However, the respondent failed to take possession of the plot or make payment in time. The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Sonepat, alleging that the petitioner had failed to hand over possession as per the terms of the application and was deficient in providing services. The petitioner cancelled the registration of the respondent on the ground that despite the petitioner reminding the respondent repeatedly to make the balance payment, there was no payment or response for the same. Hence, the petitioner was compelled to cancel the allotment. The petitioner contends that the complaint before the District Forum was barred by time and was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction as the relief being claimed by the respondent related to a plot exceeded Rs. 20 Lakhs that had been paid and was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum at that time. The order of District Forum, allowing the complaint and directing the petitioner to allot an additional plot to the current respondent, was challenged before the State Commission by the petitioner, wherein the State Commission dismissed the appeal. This order of the State Commission is challenged before the NCDRC.Observations of the Commission:The NCDRC relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mls Singal Udyog vs National insurance Company Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 9161 of 2019, wherein it was held that when the matter is barred by time, the National Commission could not have dealt with the merits of the matter. It further opined that a consumer court is required to consider preliminary issues and objections in any matter before it and follow a summary approach. The legislative intent behind the same is to resolve matters expeditiously. In light of the same, the Commission held that the current petition must be allowed as the State Commission should not have proceeded to consider the matter on merits. Rather, it should have considered the preliminary objections brought up by the first appeal.With the aforementioned observations, the revision petition was allowed and the order of the State Commission was set aside and the matter was remanded to the State Commission to consider it afresh.Case:M/S TDI Infrastructure Ltd. vs Raj Kumari Case No.:Revision Petition No. 1721 of 2016Counsel for the Petitioner:Mr. Vaibhav AgnihotriCounsel for the Respondent:Mr. Vivek GuptaClick Here To Read/Download Order

NCDRC: When The Matter Is Barred By Time, The National Commission Could Not Have Dealt With The Merits Of The Matter

Smita Singh

Tags