TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 2019 and is directed against the judgment dated 14th March 2023 passed in Consumer Case No.238 of 2019 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter NCDRC. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents are a partnership firm that owned the building named "Madhav Baug" in the village of Andheri, Mumbai. The complainants were tenants in two flats on the ground floor in Building-A. The former decided to demolish this building and construct a new one and, in furtherance thereof, executed, a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement dated 20th September 2013, allotting Flat No. 801, carpet area 700 sq. ft. on the 8th floor of the B-Wing of the new building. The agreement pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts were informed by Mr. Jani that if the approved layout plan was not produced, the flats put in escrow could be released to the appellants on 11th October 2018. Further time was sought on two occasions, but the flats in escrow were finally released to the appellants on 17th December 2018. 4. Having received the said flats, the instant complaint case Annexure A-10 of the Paperbook came to be filed on 6th February 2019 seeking the following reliefs, inter alia : "a) That this Hon'ble Court, Direct and Order the opposite party to allot Flat Nos.301 & 302 on the third-floor admeasuring of 650 and 667 square feet carpet area, along with Podium Car Parking, respectively in the "B" Wing of the proposed new buildings with A Wing, B win....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... January 2019 onwards at the rate of 51,537/- per month till the final disposal and hearing of this Complaint. d) That this Hon'ble Court, Direct and Order the Opposite Party to pay the arrears of Rupees 2,50,000/- which was due on 29th October 2017 along with interest at 12% per annum to the Complainant. e) That this Hon'ble Court, Direct and Order the Opposite Party to pay Rupees Two Lakhs towards the cost of this Complaint." 5. The relevant extract of the consideration on merits by the NCDRC is as under: "7. We have considered the arguments of the consel for the parties and examined the record. The complainants sought to enforce "Indemnity-cum-Undertaking" dated 10.01.2015, under which, the owner underto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also provides for the possibility of the commission condoning delays beyond this point, but when doing so, it is to record its reasons. As already observed, the parties have agreed to keep the papers in escrow with a third party. In our view, this was done for the purpose of property implementation of the terms of the agreement. It is not in dispute, as is also evident from the record, that specific talks/parlays were ongoing inter se the parties and the escrow, about the implementation of the terms of the agreement. The escrow, in response to the appellants' communication dated 16th November 2018 Annexure A-7 of the Paperbook, has responded vide communication dated 14th December 2018, appraising the instant respondent of the instan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 1st July 2019, were subjected to payment of cost quantified at Rs.25,000/-. The focus of the respondents herein was to get the complaint dismissed on merits. It appears that the NCDRC has dismissed it on the grounds of limitation. 9. In our considered view, considering the consistent efforts back and forth, inter se the parties, with regard to the implementation of the terms of the contract, there was no question of dismissal of the complaint on the issue of limitation. It was a continuing cause of action, and, only when escrow expressed helplessness that the complainant was forced to file the complaint. 10. In our view, the stand of the NCDRC defeats the ends of justice. The initial cause of action indeed arose in July 2....