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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more