The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has delivered a critical clarification on the application of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, dismissing a multi-complainant case not on merits but on procedural grounds. The judgment underscores that the filing of a joint complaint does not consolidate disparate causes of action, and each complainant must initiate proceedings within two years of their individual cause of action arising.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The complainants, residents of Diplomatic Homes in Dwarka, Delhi, purchased apartments from M/s Greentech Housing & Country Homes Pvt. Ltd. They alleged that the builder failed to deliver promised amenities - including CCTV, power backup, municipal water connection, proper drainage, and structural safety features - despite representations in the Builder Buyer Agreement. Additionally, the actual built-up area of each apartment was substantially less than the contracted area, with a shortfall of up to 40%. No Completion Certificate was ever issued. The complainants formed a Resident Welfare Association (RWA) to collectively address these deficiencies and incurred significant expenses for repairs and maintenance.
Procedural History
- 2015 - 2016: Possession handed over and Sale Deeds executed for most complainants
- 2019: Complainant No. 5 purchased her apartment with full knowledge of existing conditions
- October 2020: Joint complaint filed before the Delhi State Commission, over four years after most complainants took possession
- August 2025: Hearing conducted; both parties submitted affidavits and written arguments
- January 2026: Commission dismissed the complaint on grounds of limitation
Relief Sought
The complainants sought: (1) reimbursement of Rs. 7.35 lakh for repair costs borne by the RWA; (2) handover of all promised facilities as per Annexure 21; (3) issuance of the Completion Certificate; (4) compensation of Rs. 6.11 lakh per apartment for fraudulent overcharging due to area discrepancy; and (5) any other relief deemed just.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a joint consumer complaint filed under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 remains maintainable when individual complainants have distinct dates of possession and causes of action, and the majority of claims are filed beyond the two-year limitation period.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The complainants argued that the deficiencies were ongoing and continuous, constituting a single, unified cause of action. They relied on Samruddhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. to assert that collective grievances arising from common infrastructure defects should be treated as a single complaint. They contended that the formation of the RWA and repeated representations to the builder demonstrated continuous efforts to resolve the issue, thereby justifying condonation of delay.
For the Respondent
The builder argued that the complaint was time-barred for all complainants except the fifth, whose purchase was in 2019. Counsel cited Piyush Goel v. DLF Home Developers Ltd. to emphasize that limitation begins from the date of possession or execution of the Sale Deed, not from the date of discovery of defects. They further argued that the complainants’ unauthorized structural modifications to the building negated any claim of deficiency and that no common cause of action existed across complainants who purchased at different times under different terms.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission undertook a strict textual interpretation of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which mandates that a complaint must be filed within two years from the date the cause of action arises. The Court held that the cause of action for each complainant arose on the date of possession or execution of the Sale Deed, not upon discovery of defects or the formation of the RWA.
"The Complainants ought to have approached this Commission within a period of two years from the date when they first noticed the alleged defects and shortcomings in their respective apartments and common areas."
The Court rejected the argument that a collective grievance could extend limitation for all parties. It distinguished Samruddhi Cooperative Housing Society, noting that case involved a registered society acting as a single legal entity, whereas here, the complainants were individual purchasers with independent contracts and possession dates. The Court further held that Complainant No. 5, who purchased in 2019, could not piggyback on the stale claims of others, as her cause of action was distinct and arose only after her purchase. The Commission emphasized that the complainants’ own unauthorized construction activities - including demolition of lift rooms and terrace modifications - undermined their claim of deficiency.
The Court concluded that the doctrine of continuous cause of action does not apply where the defect is not latent or hidden, but apparent at the time of possession. The burden to establish sufficient cause for delay lies squarely on the complainant, and mere collective action does not satisfy this threshold.
The Verdict
The complaint was dismissed. The Court held that the two-year limitation period under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is strictly applicable to each complainant individually, and joint filing cannot revive time-barred claims. Complainant No. 5’s claim was not adjudicated on merits due to procedural misjoinder, but she was permitted to file a separate complaint for any independent deficiency arising after her purchase.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Joint Complaints Require Common Cause of Action
- Practitioners must ensure all complainants in a joint consumer case share an identical, contemporaneous cause of action
- Filing a joint complaint with disparate possession dates invites dismissal on limitation grounds
- RWA-led complaints must be structured as representative suits under Order I Rule 8 CPC, not as joint complaints under CPA
Limitation Starts at Possession, Not Discovery
- The two-year clock begins on the date of possession or execution of the Sale Deed, not when defects become apparent
- Builders may rely on this to defeat claims filed years after handover, even for latent defects if they were reasonably discoverable at possession
- Evidence of prior complaints or RWA correspondence does not extend limitation unless accompanied by a formal application for condonation
Independent Claims Must Be Separately Filed
- A complainant who joins a late-filed case cannot benefit from the limitation period of a later complainant
- Practitioners should advise clients to file individual complaints if their purchase date differs from others
- Courts will not entertain attempts to aggregate claims for jurisdictional or procedural convenience
