The Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has clarified that a builder’s persistent failure to deliver agreed amenities constitutes a continuing wrong, thereby preserving a consumer’s right to file a complaint even after two years. This ruling redefines the application of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 in cases involving long-term deficiencies in housing projects.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Jaganshanti Developers, constructed the "Subhadra Apartments" on CTS No. 4294, Sheet No. 42, in Johariwada, Aurangabad. The respondent sold Flat No. 8 on the second floor to Mr. Chanchal Brijmohan Mahajan via a registered sale deed dated 20.05.2005. The appellant, Ku. Rekha Bhushanprasad Tiwari, purchased the same flat from Mr. Mahajan through a registered sale deed dated 11.12.2017 and has been in possession since then. The appellant alleges that the respondent, as the original promoter, failed to provide the amenities promised at the time of sale, including proper water supply, electricity, drainage, security, and common area maintenance, as required under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA).
Key Facts
- The respondent constructed the building and sold the flat to Mr. Chanchal Mahajan on 20.05.2005
- The appellant acquired the flat from Mr. Mahajan on 11.12.2017 via registered sale deed
- The appellant claims the respondent has not provided agreed amenities since 2004
- The appellant sent a legal notice dated 16.10.2021 demanding compliance
- The respondent did not respond to the notice or rectify the deficiencies
- The complaint was filed before the District Consumer Commission on 03.03.2022
- The complaint sought compensation of Rs. 7,00,000 for mental agony and Rs. 50,000 for litigation costs
Procedural History
- 20.05.2005: Original sale of Flat No. 8 by respondent to Mr. Chanchal Mahajan
- 11.12.2017: Appellant purchases flat from Mr. Mahajan via registered sale deed
- 16.10.2021: Legal notice issued by appellant demanding amenities
- 03.03.2022: District Consumer Commission, Aurangabad, dismisses complaint on limitation grounds
- 25.04.2022: First Appeal No. 253 of 2022 filed before Maharashtra State Consumer Commission
- 24.02.2026: Hearing conducted before the State Commission
- 01.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the State Commission
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the District Commission’s order dated 03.03.2022, restoration of the complaint for adjudication on merits, and award of Rs. 7,00,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000 as litigation costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a complaint alleging continuous failure by a promoter to provide agreed amenities under MOFA is barred by the two-year limitation period under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, or whether such a breach constitutes a continuing wrong that generates a fresh cause of action with each passing day.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel, Adv. V.B. Garud, argued that the respondent’s failure to provide amenities since 2004 constitutes a continuing breach of statutory obligations under MOFA. He emphasized that each day the amenities remain unprovided is a fresh violation, thereby creating a continuing cause of action. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Samruddhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 4000 of 2019, decided on 11.01.2022), which held that non-provision of amenities and completion certificates amounts to a continuing wrong, and limitation does not begin to run from the date of possession but from the date of cessation of the breach.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel, Adv. S.S. Khoche, contended that the appellant is not a direct purchaser from the respondent and therefore lacks privity of contract. He argued that the cause of action arose in 2005 or at the latest in 2017 upon transfer of possession, and the complaint filed in 2022 is time-barred under Section 69. He further submitted that the District Commission correctly applied the limitation period and that the State Commission should not interfere with factual findings.
The Court's Analysis
The State Commission examined the nature of the respondent’s obligations under MOFA, which imposes statutory duties on promoters to provide amenities, fixtures, and fittings as promised to flat purchasers. The Court noted that the breach is not a single, isolated act but an ongoing failure that persists day after day. The Court observed:
"Continuous failure for providing agreed necessary amenities and completion certificate is breach of obligations imposed on respondent under the MOFA and amount to a continuing wrong and therefore the complaint of appellant is not barred by limitation."
The Commission distinguished this case from those involving one-time defects, such as faulty construction or delayed possession, where limitation commences from the date of delivery. Here, the absence of amenities is a state of non-compliance that endures indefinitely. The Supreme Court’s decision in Samruddhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. was applied directly, as it established that such breaches are not subject to a fixed limitation period starting from the date of sale or possession.
The Commission further held that the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint at the admission stage without considering the nature of the breach. The issue of whether amenities were promised, whether they were statutory obligations under MOFA, and whether the respondent had the duty to provide them even to subsequent purchasers required a full trial. The District Commission’s reliance on limitation alone was deemed legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The State Commission quashed and set aside the District Commission’s order dated 03.03.2022. The matter was remanded to the District Consumer Commission, Aurangabad, for adjudication on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the District Commission on 20.04.2026. No order was made as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Continuing Breach Extends Limitation Period
- Practitioners must now argue that non-provision of promised amenities under MOFA or RERA constitutes a continuing wrong, not a single cause of action
- Limitation under Section 69 begins only when the breach ceases, not from the date of possession or sale
- Complaints filed within two years of the last known failure to provide amenities are maintainable, even if the project was completed decades ago
Third-Party Purchasers Can Assert Rights Against Promoters
- A subsequent purchaser who buys a flat via registered sale deed can invoke consumer protection remedies against the original promoter
- Privity of contract is not a bar where statutory obligations under MOFA or RERA are violated
- Promoters remain liable for statutory duties regardless of subsequent transfers
Evidence Must Be Heard on Merits
- Courts cannot dismiss consumer complaints at admission stage on limitation grounds alone when a continuing breach is alleged
- The burden shifts to the respondent to prove that the breach has ceased or was never contractual/statutorily mandated
- Documentary evidence of promises (brochures, agreements, MOFA registrations) must be examined during trial
