Why Mumbai consumer couple lost their Rs 26 lakh claim against developer, 10 years after moving in

Law on limitation: Mandatory bar

• The complaint cannot be entertained being barred by limitation.
• We may further observe that even though the claims which have been raised and the reliefs prayed for are also otherwise not entertainable, we would confine the dismissal of this complaint on the ground of being barred by limitation.
• It is almost after 13 years of the agreement and after 10 years of the taking over of possession that the present complaint has been framed alleging deficiencies on the part of the developer and subsequently on the society, the opposite party number 5 (Shree Nandadeep Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Limited) as well.

• In our assessment on the basis of the pleadings on record and the material, the present complaint is clearly barred by the provisions of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
• Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, mandates that consumer complaints must be filed within a two-year limitation period from the date the cause of action arises.
• While commissions cannot admit complaints after this period, they may condone delays if sufficient cause is demonstrated and recorded.

‘Continuing cause’ argument falls flat

• Attempting to overcome the limitation hurdle, the complainants argued that the violations constituted a “continuing cause of action.”
• They contended that every day of non-compliance renewed the limitation period.
• The commission disagreed.

• Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 4 SCC 103, the commission held that the doctrine of continuing cause was inapplicable.
• The alleged deficiencies, if any, existed at the time of possession in 2016.
• They could not be revived in 2026 merely because the complainants had now resumed residence or discovered issues afresh.

No plea for condonation, no sufficient cause

• The commission noted that no complaint had been raised about area shortage or parking defects at the time of possession.
• The three-year defect liability window under MOFA had long expired.
• MOFA stands for the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963.
• It is a state-specific law in Maharashtra designed to protect homebuyers by regulating developers, ensuring disclosure of project details, and governing the sale, management, and transfer of apartment ownership.

• The housing society (Shree Nandadeep Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Limited) itself came into existence only in 2021.
• No sufficient cause was pleaded or demonstrated to justify the delay.
• “There is no sufficient cause pleaded or shown for the delay,” the commission said.

Complaint dismissed

• Although the commission hinted that the reliefs sought were “otherwise not entertainable,” it confined the dismissal strictly to the limitation ground.
• “The complaint is accordingly dismissed,” the commission concluded.

Flat Purchase: 2013 agreement

• The dispute traces back to December 20, 2013, when one Pradip Sonavane and his wife entered into an Agreement for Sale with DSSD Infrastructure Private Limited for flat number 701 on the seventh floor of “Shri Nandadeep Bhavan” in Chembur, Mumbai.
• The flat measured 989 square feet, and the couple paid a total amount of Rs 2,89,47,828.
• The price included the proportionate cost of common areas and amenities.

• The agreement also contained clauses regulating parking usage and a defect liability provision (Clause 40), giving a limited statutory window under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) to raise structural complaints.
• Parking slot number ‘Carpark-02’ in the basement was formally allotted to them on April 14, 2016.
• Possession of the flat itself was offered on August 31, 2016.

Grievances raised decade later

• The couple’s complaint, filed in 2026, alleged that the allotted basement parking was inconvenient and unsafe due to an uncovered manhole.
• The parking was unsuitable for a larger luxury vehicle they intended to purchase.
• There was a shortfall of 99 square feet in carpet area.
• The developer had violated statutory obligations under MOFA by incorrectly mentioning the carpet area.
• The housing society had failed to frame a uniform parking policy and refused to entertain their representations.

• To support their claims, they relied on a private architect’s report dated August 28, 2025.
• They sought cancellation of the existing parking allotment, re-allotment of a lawful slot, cancellation of additional parking spaces allegedly given to others, Rs 26,02,611 in compensation for excess area sold, and various directions to the society regarding documentation and maintenance billing.

Crucial admission: Flat rented out

• The commission noted that possession had been taken in 2016 and that the complainant-husband was abroad for professional reasons.
• During this period, the flat was rented out and the couple began residing there only after 2024.
• For nearly eight years after possession, no grievance was formally raised.
• “It is almost after 13 years of the agreement and after 10 years of the taking over of possession that the present complaint has been framed,” the commission said.

What this means for homebuyers

• The ruling sends a clear message- consumer forums will not reopen real estate disputes indefinitely.
• Even where allegations involve statutory violations or construction deficiencies, the clock starts ticking when possession is handed over.
• Delayed discoveries, change of circumstances, or evolving personal needs, such as upgrading to a larger vehicle cannot revive a stale cause of action.
• For homebuyers, the takeaway is stark- inspect thoroughly, document grievances promptly, and act within the statutory window.
• Consumer law offers remedies but not without timelines.