Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Shri. Devulapalli Venkate Swara Rao Vs. Pochambavi China Janga Reddy
Case No.: F.A. No. 136/2024
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Justice A.P. Sahi, recently ruled that a consumer complaint can be dismissed if it is filed too late, as outlined under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. For any delay, a valid reason must be provided to justify why the complaint was late.
Case Background
In this case, the complainants bought plots of land from the respondents back in 1984. They later argued that the land sold to them did not exist, meaning there was no proper title or identification of the land. Initially, they took their complaint to the State Commission of Telangana. However, the State Commission decided that such a dispute over the sale deed for non-existent property should be handled by a civil court, not a consumer forum. Unsatisfied with this decision, the complainants approached the National Commission.
National Commission’s Observations
The National Commission noted that the State Commission should have considered the limitation period and dismissed the complaint right away. They referred to the case of Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd. (2022), which explained that a continuing wrong happens when there’s an ongoing breach of obligation. In the referenced case, the breach involved not obtaining an occupancy certificate.
However, in the current case, the land was bought in 1984, and the complainants claimed they only found out in 2018 that the land did not exist. They waited until 2020 to file their complaints. The Commission found it unreasonable for them to take 34 years to realize the issue with their land purchase.
The complaint was filed 36 years after the sale without a valid explanation for such a long delay. There was also no evidence that the complainants took possession of the land or tried to recover possession during this period. The cause of action arose back in 1984, and the complainants’ inaction couldn’t override the limitation period stipulated in Section 24A of the 1986 Act. Since the breach occurred in 1984 and there was no possibility of taking possession of non-existent land, the National Commission found the complaint to be time-barred.
As a result, the National Commission dismissed the appeal.
Practical Takeaway
This judgment underscores the importance of acting promptly when filing consumer complaints. Delays can render your complaint invalid, especially if you cannot provide a sufficient reason for the delay. Always be aware of the limitation periods specified in the Consumer Protection Act to ensure your grievances are heard.
