Maharashtra

Additional DCF, Thane

CC/12/95

श्री. भिमराव शंकर गायकवाड - Complainant(s)

Versus

मे. शुभम ऐंटरप्रायजेस - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay & Sarla Shinde

03 Mar 2014

ORDER

ठाणे जिल्हा अतिरिक्त ग्राहक तक्रार निवारण मंच,
कोंकण भवन, नवी मुंबई.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/95
 
1. श्री. भिमराव शंकर गायकवाड
having address at Om Apartment, Flat no. 102, 1st floor, Sector 20, Plot no. B-186, C.B.D. Belapur Village, Navi Mumbai 400614.
Thane
Maharashtra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. मे. शुभम ऐंटरप्रायजेस
Prop. Mr. Valmiki Raghunath Khairnar, ofice at 406, Prabhat Center, Annex Building, 4th Floor, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400614.
Thane
Mahrashtra
2. Mr. Tapan Pal
having address at OM Apartment, Flat no. 101, 1st floor, Sector 20, Plot no. B-16, C.B.D. Belapur Village, Navi Mumbai 400614
Thane
Maharashtra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MRS. Sneha S.Mhatre PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. S.S.Patil MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
तक्रारदाराचे वकील वर्षा वैद्य हजर.
......for the Complainant
 
वि.प 1 चे वकील मांगेला हजर.
वि.प 2 गैरहजर.
......for the Opp. Party
ORDER

ADDITIONAL THANE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM

Room no. 428 and 429, Kokan Bhavan Annex Building, 4th floor,

C.B.D, Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614.

                                          Complaint no. 95/2012

Mr. Bhimrao Shankar Gaikwad,

Having address at Om Apartment,

Plot no. 102, 1st floor, Sector 20,

Plot no.B-186, C.B.D. Belapur Village,

Navi Mumbai 400614.                            .. Complainant   

 

                   Versus 

 

1) M/s. Shubham Enterprises

and Shree Sai Shiv Developers

Proprietor Mr. Valmiki Raghunath Khairnar

Having office at 406, Prabhat Center,

Annex building, 4th Floor, C.B.D,

Belapur Village, Navi Mumbai 400614.

2) Mr. Tapan Pal.

Having his address at Om Apartment,

Flat No. 101, 1st Floor, Sector 20,

Plot No. B-186, C.B.D.

Belapur Village, Navi Mumbai -400 614.              .. Opponents

 

BEFORE – HON’BLE PRESIDENT MRS. S. S. MHATRE

            HON’BLE MEMBER MR. S. S. PATIL

Present –  Ld. Adv. Vijay Shinde for the Complainant

                 Ld. Adv. Mangela for the Opponent no. 1

     Ld. Adv. Mahesh Rathod for Opponent no. 2

 

Order below an application of the Complainant for condonation of delay in filing complaint no. 95/2012.

     (03/03/2014)

 

Per HON'ABLE MR. S.S.Patil MEMBER.

1.                     This is an application dtd.13/06/2012 for condoning the delay in filing this complaint before this Forum.  The Complainant has stated in this application that he had purchased flat no. 101, 1st floor, Om Apartment Sector 20, Plot no. B-186, C.B.D. Belapur Vilage,  Navi Mumbai from the Opponents. The agreement for sale in respect of this flat is dtd. 30/10/2002. However, the Opponent had given possession of flat no. 102 to the Complainant on 15/08/2003 and informed the Complainant that flat no. 10 is flat no. 101. Possession of flat no. 101 was given to Opponent no. 2. From these facts it is crystal clear that the cause of action has arisen on 15/08/2003 when the Opponent had handed over the possession of flat no. 102 instead of flat no. 101 in the same building.

 

2.                     The Complainant has further stated in para 5 that the cause of action 1st arose on 23/05/2009. But the Complainant has not stated as to how the cause of action first arose on 23/05/2009. This statement of the Complainant that the cause of action first arose on 23/05/2009 is an arrow in the air without any document.  It is also not mentioned as to how this is a continuous cause of action. Once the Opponent has given wrong flat on 15/08/2003, the cause arose on this date and the Complainant should come before the proper authority for redressal of his grievance within 2 years from 15/08/2003. The complaint has been filed on 11/06/2012 i.eafter more than 9 long years.  Hence this complaint is hopelessly time barred.  It is an established principle of law that the complaint should be instituted within a period of limitation and the Complainant should explain as to why he was not able to file the complaint in this respect within a stipulated period of two years.

 

3.                     The applicant has mentioned in para 6 of the complaint that  “because the Complainant approached many times to the Opponents office but found that Opponent’s office is locked and nobody is taking the complaint after that Complainant made the police complaint against Opponent therefore the delay is done to file the present complaint it may be condened.”

 

4.           Inspite of grammatical mistakes and wrong words used in the said explanation we considered the said explanation.  However the  said explanation cannot be an acceptable for condoning the long delay of more than 7 years.  Certainly it is not a satisfactory cause as contemplated u/s. 24(A)(2) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence in our candid view, the complaint is time barred and needs to be dismissed as hopelessly time barred.  Hence we pass the order as follows.

ORDER

1. An application of the Complainant for condoning delay, filed on 13/06/2012 is rejected as the Complainant has failed to give any satisfactory reason to condone the delay of 7 years.  Consequently complaint no. 95/2012 is dismissed as it is not filed within the prescribed period of 2 years from the cause of action i.e 15/08/2003.

2. Copies of the above said order be given to the concerned parties free of cost.

Date :- 03/03/2014.

Place :- Kokan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai.

 

 

                      (S.S.Patil)      (S.S.Mhatre)

                     Member         President

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. Sneha S.Mhatre]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. S.S.Patil]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.