Skip to main content

Period of limitation starts from the date defect comes to the notice of the Complainant

In Rajendra Kumar Poddar vs M/S. Subham Constructions, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground of having been filed after two years from the date of cause of action and therefore appeal before NCDRC.

Learned counsel stated that the possession was taken on 18.05.2012 and after taking the possession the complainant noticed that there were several defects in the construction and the complainant was pursuing the matter with the opposite parties.  The opposite parties were giving assurance for rectification of the defects, however, when no rectification was done the complaint was filed on 08.01.2015. The State Commission has considered the period of limitation from the date of possession whereas the fact is that complainant was pursuing with the opposite parties and it was continuing cause of action as all the defects were not noticed initially and later on more defects came to the light, therefore, the limitation should be counted from the date of awareness of all the defects mentioned in the complaint.  All the defects were noticed in the month of January, 2013 only and therefore, the complaint filed in January, 2015 was within the limitation period. 

The NCDRC agreed with the State Commission which had referred to Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries wherein it was held that the consumer forum has to decide the issue of limitation first and complaint will not be admitted if it is filed after two year beyond the date of cause of action.  Once the possession was taken on 18.05.2012, it cannot be said that the defects did not come to the notice of the complainant even within a period of one or two months.  First of all, the complainant would have taken the possession only after prior inspection of the unit.  However, even if that was not done, atleast the complainant should have known the defects while taking possession or atleast within a period of one or two months.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more