Delhi

West Delhi

CC/10/471

Sh. Joginder Singh Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Delhi Development Authority Commercial Land - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 25.06.2010

Complaint Case. No.471/10                                                  Date of order:    24.10.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Sh. Joginder Singh Chawla and Sh. Rajinder Singh Chawla  both Sons of  late              Sh. D.S. Chawla R/o 157, Rohtak Road, Transport Nagar, New Delhi.

       Complainants

VERSUS

 

1. Delhi Development Authority Commercial Land Branch A Block, Ist Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA  Market, New Delhi : 110023.

Opposite party no. 1

2. State Bank of India, 39 NWA  Club Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi: 110026.

Opposite party no. 2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Sh.  Joginder Singh Chawla and Sh. Rajinder  Singh Chawla  named  above  herein the complainants have filed  the present consumer  complaint  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act herein after in short referred as the Act against Delhi Development Authority   and another herein after  in short  referred  as the opposite parties for  directions  to the opposite parties to refund                          Rs. 4,59,000/-  paid  by the complainant to the opposite  party no. 1 with interest @18%  p.a.  from date of payment  till actual realization, pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-  and litigation expenses of  Rs. 22,000/- .

            Briefly case of the complainants is that they are owners in possession of property  No. 157, Rohtak Road, Transport Nagar, New Delhi.  The opposite party no. 1 asked the complainants to deposit Rs. 3,05,772.45 with interest of                Rs.1,47,200/- as  arrears of ground  rent.  The complainants replied the opposite party no. 1 that they had paid all the outstanding amount.  Therefore, the demand of the opposite party is arbitrary and illegal.

            That the complainants had to get the property free hold.  Therefore, the complainants had to deposit the amount of Rs. 4,59,000/- on 24.12.2007 in account of the opposite party no. 1 despite the complainants had  already deposited  a sum of Rs. 79,847.45 with the opposite party no. 1 on 17.10.1994.  The complainants several times  asked the opposite party no.1  to refund the amount of Rs. 4,59,000/-  wrongly  charged from  them.  But to no effect.  Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund  Rs. 4,59,000/-  paid  by the complainant to the opposite  party no. 1 with interest @18%  p.a.  from date of payment  till actual realization, pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-  and litigation expenses of Rs. 22,000/- .

            After notice the opposite party no. 1 appeared and filed reply asserting that the complainants did not deposit Rs. 79,847.45 in account of the opposite party  no. 1.  Therefore, the opposite party no 1 asked the complainants to pay                       Rs. 4,59,000/-. The complainants paid the amount to the opposite party no. 1.  The  opposite party no. 1 is not liable to refund the said sum of Rs.4,59,000/- and   prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

            After notice the opposite party no. 2 also filed reply asserting that the complainants deposited Rs. 79,847.45 with the opposite party no. 2 on 14.02.2008.  They issued a certificate of  deposit of Rs. 79,847.45 through challan with the opposite party  no.2 and  had deposited with the opposite party no.1.   All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The complainants filed rejoinders to the replies of the opposite parties while controverting  stand of the opposite parties and reiterating their stand.  They once again prayed for directions to the opposite parties.

When  the complainants were asked to lead  evidence by way of affidavit  they filed  their affidavits narrating facts of the complaint.  They  also relied upon  Annexure “A” challan dated 17.10.1994, Annexure “B”  undated letter of the complainant , Annexure “C” certificate of the lieu /misplaced challan, Annexure “D”  letter dated 06.08.2008 of the opposite party no.1  to opposite party no. 2, Annexure “E”  challan dated 24.12.2007, Annexure “F” letter dated 09.11.2009 of opposite party no. 1  and  dated 16.11.2009 of the opposite party no.2, Annexure “G” Copy of legal notice dated 20.11.2009 with original Regd A/D  acknowledgment and UPC postal receipt, Annexure “H” original reply dated 12.03.2010 of the opposite parties , Annexure “I”   letter dated 27.03.2010 of the complainant to the Opposite party no. 1.  

When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence by way of  affidavit , the opposite party no. 1  tendered in evidence  affidavit of  Sh. Atam Prakash and opposite party no.2 tendered  in evidence affidavit of Smt. Nirmala Verma  narrating facts of their respective  replies.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone  through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 argued   that according to the complainant amount of Rs. 4,59,000/- was deposited  by the complainant  with the opposite party no. 1. on 24.12.2007.  The present complaint is filed on 28.06.2010. Whereas according to provisions of Section 24 A of the Act the complaint  can be filed within two years from cause of action.  Therefore, the complaint is  barred by limitation.  

Before proceeding further it is worthwhile to reproduce section 24 A of the Act.  Which runs as under:-

“Section 24 A  Limitation period 

(1)       The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit  a  complaint  unless it is filed  within  two years from the date  on which cause of action has arisen.

(2)       Notwithstanding  anything  contained in sub-section(1) , a complaint  may be  entertained  after the period  specified in sub-section(1), if the  complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National commission as the case may be, that he had sufficient  cause for not filing the complaint  within such period.

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be,  records its reasons for condoning such delay.”    

From bare reading of provisions of  Section 24 A of the Act it is crystal clear that  a complaint under the  Act  can  be filed within two years  from cause of action .  Similar view is taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  of India in case law reported as SBI of India Vs B.S. Agricultural Industries AIR 2009  Supreme Court  2010.  Wherein it is held  that Section 24 A  of the Act  prescribes limitation period of admission of complaint  is peremptory  in nature  and requires  Consumer Forum to see  before it admits the complaint  that it has been filed  within  two years from the date of  accrual of cause of action.

Admittedly  amount of Rs. 4,59,000/- was  deposited  by the complainant  with opposite party no. 1 on 24.12.2007.  The present complaint is filed on 28.06.2010  after lapse of more than three years.  Hence  the complaint is barred by limitation.

Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. 

onHoH

  Order pronounced on : 24.10.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT