M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED versus SNEHASIS NANDA

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 20-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 866 : 2025 INSC 371
M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Limited 
v. 
Snehasis Nanda
(Civil Appeal No. 14157 of 2024)
20 March 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether on facts, the complainant-respondent would come under 
the definition of ‘consumer’ in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 
1986; whether any liability rested on the appellant to disburse the 
entire amount of Rs.31,00,000/- i.e., the remaining consideration 
amount for sale of the flat payable to the complainant-respondent 
by the borrower; whether borrower should have been joined in 
proceedings before the NCDRC.
Headnotes†
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – Respondent-
complainant took a housing loan of Rs.17,64,644/- from 
ICICI Bank and purchased a flat – Respondent and the 
borrower entered into an Agreement for the sale of the flat for 
Rs.32,00,000/-, Rs.1 Lakh paid by borrower – Appellant and 
the borrower entered into a Home Loan Agreement wherein 
the appellant agreed to grant a loan of Rs.23,40,000/- to the 
borrower – On request of the borrower, Rs.17,80,000/- were 
transferred by the appellant to the Bank – Respondent filed 
Complaint praying for directions to the appellant to pay 
compensation due to the loss caused to him for non-payment 
of the balance Rs.13,20,000/- under an alleged Tripartite 
Agreement – NCDRC allowed the complaint – Sustainability:
Held: Impugned order not sustainable, set aside – A conjoint reading 
of all the agreements concludes that the essential transaction of 
sale was between the respondent and the borrower – Respondent, 
having no privity of contract with the appellant, cannot be termed a 
‘consumer’ under the Act – Even the purported Tripartite Agreement, 
relied upon by the respondent himself, states that the appellant 
would only pay the foreclosure amount, out of the total loan amount 
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 
867
M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Limited v. Snehasis Nanda
sanctioned to the borrower, to ICICI Bank for or on behalf of the 
borrower towards foreclosure of respondent’s loan facility with it – 
Appellant’s liability under the Agreement for sale was restricted 
only to satisfying the dues of the respondent with Bank which sum 
was in fact quantified at Rs.17,87,763/- and in anyway, could not 
have exceeded Rs.23,40,000/- – NCDRC could not have held that 
the appellant was liable to pay Rs.31,00,000/- both to the Bank 
as well as to the respondent, who was not a party to the ultimate 
sanction of the loan by the Home Loan Agreement between the 
appellant and the borrower. [Paras 17, 19, 20]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Non-joinder of borrower in 
proceedings before NCDRC – Effect of:
Held: In the instant case, if the borrower had been arrayed as an 
Opposite Party in the NCDRC, the question of whether a Tripartite 
Agreement was duly executed and existed or not, could perhaps 
have been answered – In view of the borrower being the purchaser 
of the flat in question and party to the MoU, the Agreement for 
Sale, the Home Loan Agreement and the purported Tripartite 
Agreement, he was, at the very least a proper party, but looked at 
from the lens where the appellant denied the very existence of the 
Tripartite Agreement, the borrower being the sole link between the 
respondent and the appellant, the borrower would be a necessary 
party in the complaint. [Para 23]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.24A – Limitation period – 
Discretion of NCDRC in condoning delay – Scope – On facts, 
purported Tripartite Agreement was dated 09.02.2008 – Cause of 
action statedly had arisen in/by April/May, 2008 – Respondent 
filed complaint under the Act on 16.04.2018: 
Held: NCDRC is competent to condone any period of delay in filing 
a complaint beyond two years from the date when the cause of 
action arises, the discretion is circumscribed by twin conditions: 
(i) that the complainant satisfy the NCDRC that he had sufficient 
cause for not filing his complaint within such period, and; (ii) that 
the NCDRC record the reasons for condoning such delay – In the 
present case, despite the appellant raising the issue of limitation, 
the impugned order is silent on it – Respondent was agitating the 
dispute before, inter alia, the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank 
of India and even the High Court – Thus, at the initial stage(s) 
868
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of hearing, he ought to have satisfied/attempted to satisfy the 
NCDRC on the delay 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.