Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan against Experion Developers Private Limited regarding an increase in the sale area of their apartments in the 'Windchants' housing project in Gurgaon, Haryana. The respondents alleged that the appellant demanded additional payments for an increase in the sale area without any corresponding increase in the carpet or built-up area. The appellant contended that the respondents had made payments towards the increased sale area without protest and that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the appellant to refund the excess amount collected and execute supplementary deeds. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the arguments, found that the cause of action arose when the appellant demanded payment for the increased sale area, and the respondents' complaint was within the limitation period due to the suspension of limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court emphasized that the appellant failed to provide adequate justification for the increase in sale area and thus upheld the National Commission's order for a refund. The court also noted that the respondents had the right to challenge the calculations provided by the appellant and that the onus to substantiate the claim lay with the appellant. The matter was remanded to the National Commission for further examination in light of the court's observations.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Limitation Period - Filing of Complaint - Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 69 - The court held that the cause of action arose when the appellant demanded payment for the increased sale area, and the complaint filed by the respondents was within the limitation period due to the exclusion of time during the pandemic. The court emphasized that the respondents were entitled to challenge the computation of the increased sale area (Paras 11-14). B) Consumer Protection - Refund of Excess Payment - Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 69 - The court directed the appellant to refund the amount collected for the excess sale area, as the respondents had not been provided with adequate justification for the increase, and the demand was deemed illegal (Paras 9-10). C) Consumer Protection - Continuing Cause of Action - Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 69 - The court disagreed with the National Commission's finding of a continuing cause of action, stating that the cause of action was complete when the appellant insisted on payment without providing necessary details (Paras 11-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed by the respondents was within the limitation period as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the National Commission's order directing the appellant to refund the excess amount collected and execute supplementary deeds, ruling that the complaint was within the limitation period and the appellant failed to justify the increase in sale area.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection
- Limitation Period
- Cause of Action
- Refund
- Sale Area Variation
