National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While considering this revision petition arising out of a challenge to the common order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, allowing amendments in the complaints filed before it, in a builder-buyer dispute; the Bench of A.P. Sahi, J. (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), opined that, it is the nature of the amendment in the complaint which has to be also looked into as to whether such an amendment is necessary for adjudicating the controversy.
The present matter, which was essentially a builder-buyer dispute, the complaints were filed in 2016-2017 and the amendment application was prepared on 17-12-2023 and was registered in 2024. The amendment application essentially introduced averments regarding cash payments. The SCDRC vide its impugned order, had allowed the amendments made in the complaint.
The respondents contended that the averments introduced by the amendment in the complaint did not change the nature of the dispute, nor did it cause any prejudice to the adjudication of the controversy or to the petitioners.
Per contra, the petitioners argued that amendment had been filed at the tail end of the litigation at the stage of final hearing and that it was inordinately delayed. It was further submitted that the filing of the amendment applications after exchange of the pleadings should not be permitted to fill any lacuna, in as much as, the payments through cash had not been pleaded at all. It was further submitted that the delay is almost of 2369 days and the excuse given that the deficit in pleading was realised only after change of counsel, was unacceptable. Furthermore, since there was no plausible explanation for the delay, the amendment deserves rejection. It was further submitted that the amendment applications, nowhere give any explanation as to why such pleadings, in spite of exercise of due diligence had not been made earlier or in the complaints itself when the complainants allege to have relied on certain cash receipts that are stated to have been filed along with the complaint. The petitioner’s counsel relied on Basavaraj v. Indira (2024) 3 SCC 705, to urge that the amendments should not be permitted.
Perusing the contentions, the NCDRC found that that the cash receipts about which reference was made in the amendment application, had already been filed along with the complaint. There was no explanation or any reason given as to why the same was not specifically pleaded in the complaint. “There may be myriad reasons, in as much as, at times cash payments are not effectively disclosed for multifarious secret reasons, but the fact remains that the receipts had been filed along with the complaint. The complainants therefore for reasons best known to them did not specifically plead the contents of those cash receipt documents even though they had been filed filed along with the complaint”.
The NCDRC pointed out that the present case is thus a case where in effect the evidence was stated to have been filed along with the complaint and the pleadings are now sought to be introduced through an amendment. “The fact of payment of consideration by cash was therefore in the knowledge of the complainants, when they had filed the complaint. Thus, the complainants cannot contend that they had no knowledge about the same”.
The NCDRC further took note of the respondents’ plea in the amendement about oversight while drafting the complaints. This oversight was sought to be corrected by moving an application when the case had been taken up for final hearing. Furthtermore, the NCDRC stated that the delay in moving of the amendment applications could not be overlooked.
Opining that the nature of the amendement as to the necessity for adjudication of controversy is important to look, the NCDRC pointed out that the controversy remains the same except for the quantum of the payments. The quantum of the payments may be necessary for any adjustment in case the complainants succeed or otherwise to assess the delay in payments, and therefore may be a matter to be considered during the proceedings later on, in case a decree intervenes in favour of the respondents.
The NCDRC stated that the question of allowing the amendment at this stage of final hearing has to be considered in the light of the fact that the issue of any quantum of payment is not very essential to the core nature of the controversy of the deficiency alleged. In case it is found that after the payments the respondents were entitled to the property, it is only then the issue of any adjustment of payments or delay in payments may arise. “The amendment has been filed very belatedly, but any allegation should not cause any prejudice either to the complainants or to the other side, and therefore the petitioner has every right to contest the allegation of the payments made by cash”.
Therefore, the NCDRC modified the impugned order to the extent that the amendments sought will be subject to any objections to be filed by the petitioners, and such objections shall be liable to be considered while proceeding to finally hear the matter. However, in case the petitioners choose to lead any evidence in this regard, they shall be permitted to do so before the final hearing commences. The petitioners shall however confine to the time limits to be fixed by the State Commission in this regard and the matter shall thereafter proceed accordingly.
[K.K. Constructions v. Mohammad Yakub Khan, REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/960/2025, order dated 20-11-2025]
*Order by Justice A.P Sahi, President
Advocates who appeared in this case:
FOR THE PETITIONER: MR. VARUN VARMA, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR. SAHIL ANSARI, ADVOCATE