The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a consumer complaint filed against a developer and a housing society as barred by limitation, holding that the cause of action arose when possession of the flat was taken in 2016 and could not be treated as a continuing cause of action merely because alleged deficiencies were discovered later. The Bench comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Member Bharatkumar Pandya held that the complaint filed in 2026 was clearly beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainants, Pradip Sonavane and his wife, had filed the 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 known as “Shri Nandadeep Bhavan.” The allegations primarily concerned an inconvenient and defective parking slot and discrepancies in carpet area and construction deviations based on a private architect’s report.
The complainants 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 crore. A parking slot was allotted on 14 April 2016 and possession of the flat was offered on 31 August 2016, which the complainants accepted. The complainants admitted that the premises were rented out as one of them was residing abroad and that they began residing in the flat themselves only after 2024.
The complainants alleged that the parking space was inconvenient and unsafe due to an uncovered manhole and limited maneuvering space. They also relied on a private architect’s report dated 28 August 2025 alleging shortage in carpet area and construction deviations. Based on these allegations, they approached the Commission in 2026 seeking allotment of an alternative parking space, compensation and other directions against the developer and the housing society.
The opposite parties contended that the complaint was barred by limitation since possession had been handed over in 2016 and any alleged deficiencies would have been apparent at that time. They argued that the complaint was filed nearly ten years after possession and could not be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Commission considered limitation as a preliminary issue and noted that the agreement for sale was executed in 2013 and possession had admittedly been taken in 2016. It observed that no grievance regarding parking space or carpet area had been raised at the time of possession or within the period specified under the agreement. The Commission held that the cause of action had clearly arisen when possession was taken and that the subsequent discovery of alleged defects could not extend the limitation period.
Rejecting the argument that the complaint involved a continuing cause of action, the Commission held that the alleged deficiencies existed at the time possession was handed over and could not be treated as continuing breaches. The Commission observed that the complainants had returned to reside in the premises only in 2024 and thereafter sought adjustments based on their present needs, which could not revive a stale claim.
Referring to Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission reiterated that a consumer complaint must be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises unless sufficient cause for delay is shown. It noted that no sufficient cause had been pleaded or established to justify the delay.
Relying 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., the Commission held that limitation must be examined at the threshold and that a complaint filed beyond the statutory period cannot be entertained without condonation of delay. Holding that the complaint was clearly barred by limitation, the Commission dismissed the complaint without examining the merits of the allegations.
Cause Title: Pradip Sonavane & Anr. v. DSSD Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: NC/CC/13/2026
Coram: Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Member Bharatkumar Pandya
