This First Appeal, by a Real Estate Developer, is directed against the order dated 2.11.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”), in Complaint No.C-68/12.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the application filed by the Complainant seeking amendment of the Complaint.  The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows :

“By way of present application the complainant has sought to make amendment to the complaint stating that during the pendency of the present complaint the OP sold the flat in question to a third party by way of making an advertisement in the newspaper.  Complainant accordingly intends to incorporate the said plea in the body of the complaint and an amendment to the prayer clause.  Contention of the complainant is that the OP sold the said flat to a third person for an amount of ₹66,00,000/-.  Complainant wants recovery of the said amount along with interest @ 18% p.a.  Since the amendment sought for does not change the basic nature of the complaint.  Application is allowed.”

The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the Appellant is that since in the first instance, in his Complaint, the Complainant, had not prayed for delivery of possession of the flat in question and had restricted his prayer to the refund of the amount deposited by him along with interest, etc., the amendment, seeking to add the prayer for delivery of possession, amounted to changing the nature of the Complaint, and hence it could not be allowed, more so, when the amendment was sought at a very belated stage, of final arguments.

We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned counsel.

The cause of action for filing the Complaint arose when the Appellant had failed to deliver the possession of the subject flat by the stipulated time, i.e. December 2009, and at the same time demanded extra amount from the Complainant, which, according to him was not payable.  The completion of flat not being in sight, the Complainant prayed for refund of the amount already deposited, along with certain other reliefs.  According to the averments in the amended Complaint, the cause to seek amendment arose when the Complainant learnt that during the pendency of his Complaint, the Appellant had sold the flat at a high premium, thus, enriching itself with the profit on sale of the flat and by retaining over ₹20,00,000/-, deposited by the Complainant against the cost of the flat in question.  Although it is vehemently denied by learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, that the flat had been sold and the said allegation in the amended Complaint was totally unfounded, yet, in our opinion, having regard to the nature of the contract between the parties, flowing from the Flat Buyer’s Agreement, dated 17.1.2009, the proposed amendment does not alter the character of the Complaint initially filed by the Complainant.  Having come to the said conclusion, the delay in filing of application for amendment loses its significance, more so when the delay in disposal of the Complaint would not cause any prejudice to the Opposite Party, viz., the Appellant.

Consequently, while dismissing the Appeal as without any substance, we permit the Appellant to file its Written Version to the amended Complaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is also pertinent to note that this Appeal is also barred by limitation in as much as it has been filed with a delay of 70 days, but since we have decided the Appeal on merits, we have not examined the question as to whether or not a sufficient cause for condonation of the said delay has been made out.

The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.