1. The present complaint has been filed alleging deficiency against the opposite party/ Developer in respect of a unit booked and purchased by the complainant in a project known as 'LGCL Beautiful World", Bengaluru, Karnataka. The premises is Row House No. 14, for which the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.2,99,00,000/- that was disbursed in favour of the Developer and over and above the complainant made payments totalling to the tune of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. According to the complainant the premises in question became subject matter of a sale deed that was executed on 07.01.2021. The contention is that despite execution of the sale deed the physical possession of the property was not handed and thereafter there was a default in the payment of EMIs of the loan taken from the State Bank of India which resulted in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
2. The complainant claims that he was suffering from financial hardship and the opposite party had not given actual physical possession, therefore the complainant was contesting the Bank recovery case no. 87 of 2024. While attending the said case on 03.03.2025, the complainant alleges that during a conversation, he came to know that the State Bank of India had already taken possession of the property under the orders of the CJM dated 01.04.2023. The complainant wanted to inspect the property physically and then he realised that the real valuation of the property was far below than the price paid by the complainant.
3. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties including the Bank had indulged in unfair trade practice by depicting incorrect high value of the property for releasing a higher amount of money and therefore the cause of action for the complaint arose on 03.03.2025, when the complainant went to attend the recovery case before the DRT in OA/87/2024.
4. The complaint has been filed with these allegations.
5. What we find is that the property was purchased through a sale deed and was mortgaged against a loan extended by the State Bank of India. The sale deed admittedly is dated 07.01.2021. The value of the property was therefore well known to the complainant on the date of the execution of the sale deed for which he had taken a loan of Rs.2,99,00,000/- from the SBI. The complainant has disclosed that he was working in Saudi Arabia and it is therefore evident that the complainant is not a layman. The allegation about the discovery of the correct valuation of the property led to the cause of action is therefore an excuse and not an explanation that can be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing limitation.
6. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for a period of two years of limitation for filing of a complaint. In the instant case the very injury and the wrong alleged by the complainant, if any, had already occurred in 2021, when the sale deed was executed and the loan was taken from the Bank. To say that the complainant was not aware of the correct valuation of the property is therefore an excuse. The distinction between an excuse and an explanation for the purpose of limitation has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, in paragraphs 30 to 32 as follows:
"30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.
31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse".
An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse". Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.
32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication."
7. Applying the aforesaid ratio of the judgment on principle, we find that the cause of action which has been made the basis for bringing the complaint within limitation is therefore a clear excuse. Not only this the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were well within the knowledge of the complainant which he was contesting and aware of the possession being taken over under the orders of the competent authority way back in the year 2023 itself. Admittedly with the aforesaid accrual of the cause of action the present complaint has been filed after more than two years of the expiry of limitation period without there being any explanation for such delay. The date of knowledge of valuation of the property as disclosed by the complainant does not inspire any confidence for all the reasons given hereinabove and consequently the explanation given about the communication regarding the valuation of the property through the affidavit filed on 22.02.2026 does not come to the aid of the complainant for explaining the delay. We therefore find this complaint to be barred by time. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
