The case of Mariano Matius Lobo & Another v/s Siddharth Raj Estate, Goa & Others analyzes an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging an order by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The core issues in the appeal revolve around the dismissal of a consumer complaint concerning the delayed handover of a property.

The Appellants had entered into an Agreement of Sale on January 21, 2008, with the Respondents to purchase a flat in Goa for Rs. 8,70,000. According to the agreement, possession was due on August 16, 2008, along with an Occupancy Certificate. Despite receiving most of the sale consideration, the flat was not handed over as promised. The Appellants issued a written notice on February 8, 2016, seeking possession, the Occupancy Certificate, or compensation. The Respondents acknowledged their inability to hand over the property in a reply dated February 23, 2016, and requested more time. Subsequently, the Appellants served a legal notice on April 1, 2016, which went unanswered. This led to the filing of Complaint No. 60 of 2016 before the State Commission, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Appellants argued that the State Commission incorrectly dismissed the complaint based on limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction without considering the merits of the case. They contended that the State Commission erred in calculating the limitation period from August 16, 2008, arguing that they had a continuous cause of action due to the non-delivery of possession, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Meerut Development Authority vs. M. K. Gupta. The Appellants also challenged the State Commission's decision on pecuniary jurisdiction, arguing that the claim amount fell within the State Commission's limits. They asserted that the delay in offering possession constituted a deficiency in service.

The Respondent No. 1 argued that the State Commission's order was justified, claiming that the delay in handing over possession was due to the failure of Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 to remove certain structures that hindered construction. They contended that possession was to be handed over within 42 months from the date of the municipal license and land conversion, including a six-month grace period for force majeure events. Respondent No. 1 claimed that the Appellants did not adhere to the payment schedule outlined in the Agreement of Sale and were yet to pay the final installment. They argued that the Appellants had not provided full details and that the compensation claim was exorbitant.

The Commission found merit in the Appeal and overturned the State Commission's order. It reiterated that the Respondent admitted to the delay in construction in their reply dated February 23, 2016, but failed to provide a specific date for handing over possession. Acknowledging the continuous cause of action in cases of non-delivery of possession, the Commission held that the State Commission erred in dismissing the complaint based on limitation. The Commission also found that the State Commission had erred in its assessment of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Commission stated that the State Commission should not have adjudicated the matter on merits after determining it was not maintainable. Consequently, the Commission remanded the matter back to the State Commission for adjudication on its merits, directing that it be done preferably within four months, with due opportunity given to both parties.