THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (SHRI GRISH BATRA) M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS (I) LTD versus THE GENERAL SECRETARY (SHRI AMOL MAHAPATRA) ROYAL GARDEN RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 28-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
   [2021] 12 S.C.R. 488
488
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (SHRI GRISH BATRA)
M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS (I) LTD.
v.
THE GENERAL SECRETARY (SHRI AMOL MAHAPATRA)
ROYAL GARDENRESDIENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
(Civil Appeal No. 2998 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.24A(1) – Opposite party
constructed apartments complex and offered them for sale in which
purchasers were put in possession – complainant-purchasers of flats
formed a registered association – On 15.11.2003, complainant
entered into an agreement with the opposite party for taking over
the maintenance of the apartment complex – In 2007, complainant
filed a consumer complaint before the National Commission seeking
reliefs from the opposite party – National Commission allowed the
complaint partly – Aggrieved opposite party filed instant appeal
raising objection as to limitation and challenging the reliefs granted
by National Commission – Held: s.24A(1) of the Act of 1986
prescribes a period of limitation of two years from the date on which
the cause of action has arisen for the admission of a complaint –
The opposite party handed over the work of maintenance of the
complex to the complainant under Agreement dated 15.11.2003 –
There were specific obligations yet to be performed by the opposite
party in relation to certain services – Under the agreement, different
timelines were prescribed for different obligations – Certain works
were continued up to the year 2005 – The affidavit in evidence
filed by the opposite party and bills established that the cause of
action continued at least till December, 2005 – Complaint before
the National Commission was filed in February, 2007 – Therefore,
National Commission was right in rejecting the objection relating
to limitation – National commission had appointed a local
Commissioner to inspect the facilities relatable to the reliefs claimed
in the complaint – Commissioner examined each one of the items
and found that they were not operational on date – If all the services
had been handed over in fully functional state, the opposite party
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
489
should have taken an acknowledgment in writing from the
complainant – Hence, the reliefs granted by the National commission
in favour of the complainant warrant no interference – However,
possession of the common amenities were handed over to
complainant 18 years ago, it is impossible to compel opposite party
to make such facilities fully operational at this distance of time –
Accordingly, in the interests of justice the order of the National
Commission modified in such a manner (i) that the complainant
Association shall receive in full and final settlement, the deposit
now lying in the Registry of this court, towards adequate
compensation for the reliefs that they are held entitled to by the
National Commission; and (ii) that the opposite party is directed
inter alia to hand over possession of the club house to the
complainant.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 prescribes a period of limitation of two years from the date
on which the cause of action has arisen for the admission of a
complaint, by the District Forum, State Commission or the
National Commission. In the case on hand, the opposite party
handed over the work of maintenance of the complex to the
complainant, under an Agreement dated 15.11.2003. As seen from
the preamble to the Agreement, the Agreement covered common
essential services such as generators, lifts, tubewell, water
softening plant, electric substation, cabling, fire fighting system,
pipelines, swimming pool, health and fitness centre, parking,
clubhouse, water supply, drainage/sewerage system, horticulture,
water tanks/pumps and lawns/parks. But different timelines were
prescribed under the said Agreement for different obligations
still remaining to be performed by the opposite party, towards
the purchasers of flats. The last of such timeline was indicated to
be 31.03.2004. [Paras 12,13][494-B-E]
2. There were specific obligations to be performed by the
opposite party under the said Agreement, in relation to certain
services. Therefore, the cause of action for the complaint
continued even after the date of the Agreement namely
15.11.2003. The affidavit in evidence filed by the opposite party
and the aforesaid bills establish that the cause of action continued

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