Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/164/2019

Sri.G.K.Badri Narayana Prasad , S/o Mr.G. Lakshmaiah , No.32 , VOC Colony , Anna Nagar East , Chennai -600 102. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Mrs.Puthota Arulmary , W/o Mr.P.L.Arulraj , No.3/512 , Madha Koil Street , Kellacheri Village , Ti - Opp.Party(s)

-

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL       … MEMBER

 

F.A. No.164 of 2019

(Against the Order, dated 14.03.2019, in C.C. No.448 of 2015, on the file of  the DCDRF, Chennai-South)

                                                    

                             Orders pronounced on: 27.02.2023

 

G.K.Badri Narayana Prasad,

S/o.G.Lakshmaiah,

No.32, VOC Colony,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai 600 102                          ... Appellant/Complainant

 

vs.

 

1.Puthota Arulmary,

W/o.P.L.Arul Raj,

No.3/512, Madha Koil St.,

Kellacheri Village,

Tiruvallur Taluk & Dt.

 

2. P.L.Arulraj,

Managing Director,

Brindavan Builders P. Ltd.

No.36, Brindavan Enclave,

Bolarum, Secunderabad,

Telengana.

 

3.P.L.Arulraj,

Managing Director,

Brindavan Builders P. Ltd.,

No.3/512, Madha Koil St.,

Kellacheri Village,

Tiruvallur Taluk & Dt.

 

4.G.Umashankar Reddy,

Managing Director,

Propshell Business

     Solutions P. Ltd.,

No.2, North Boag Rd.,

T.Nagar, Chennai-17.                           … Respondents/OPs

 

 

             For Appellant           :  M/s.Madhu Prakash

             For RR-1 to 3           :  M/s.C.Krishnamoorthy

 

This First Appeal came up for final hearing on 28.12.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for the parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

             The appellant herein/complainant before the District Forum has  preferred this First Appeal as against the Order, 14.03.2019, passed by the DCDRF, Chennai-South, in C.C. No.448 of 2015, dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation.

 

             2. Briefly, it is the case of the complainant/appellant that he purchased from the OPs Plot Nos.7 to 9 in the ‘Spectrum Enclave’ at Kottaiyur Village, Kadambattur Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur District, and  sale deeds in respect of the three flats were executed by the OPs in  his favour on 30.06.2010, on payment of  Rs.16,06,400/-towards the total cost of the plots.  Apart from that, another sum of Rs.13,25,280/- was also paid by him towards provision of certain amenities as specified in Annexure-A of the sale deeds and, as per the Agreements for Development, all dated 30.06.2010, the amenities should be provided by the OPs within 9 months from the date of the agreements/on or before 31.03.2011.  Despite repeated requests, the OPs failed to provide the amenities; hence, he filed the complaint before the District Forum.

           The OPs resisted the complaint on the main ground that, as per the Development Agreements, dated 30.06.2010, the amenities ought to have been provided within 9 months there-from, that was on or before 31.03.2011; as such, if the complainant had any grievance against the OPs in providing the amenities, he ought to have filed the complaint within two years from the expiry of the 9 month period/on or before 31.03.2013, but, the complaint came to be filed only during 2015 with a delay of about 1 year and 9 months; thus, the complaint is hit by limitation.

            

       3. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant filed 13 documents as Exs.A1 to A13, however, the OPs have not filed any document.  The District Forum, by the impugned order, dated 14.03.2019, recorded a finding  that, when the sale deed and agreements, dated 30.06.2010, specify that all the development works should be executed within 9 months/on or before 30.03.2011, for any service deficiency, the complainant ought to have laid the claim within a period of two years there-from, that was on 30.03.2013, but, the complainant has filed the complaint only on 06.11.2015 without even seeking to condone the inordinate delay of 1 year and 9 months and, based on such finding, held that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and dismissed it accordingly.  Hence, the present appeal by the aggrieved complainant.

 

             4. Now, learned counsel for the appellant argues that, of course, the agreements were entered on 30.06.2010,  and the same provide a 9 month period, however, the fact remains that the OPs had communicated to the appellant on 04.04.2012 and 15.07.2015, either seeking extension of time to execute the work or expressing their failure in compliance; in such circumstances, through such communications, the OPs have pushed the limitation point  upto 2015, during which year, the C.C. came to be filed by the appellant, however, the District Forum without considering those relevant factual aspects, rushed to dismiss the complaint on the frail point of limitation and hence, the present appeal deserves all acceptance by this Commission.

 

             5. Heard the other side.

 

             6. We are unable to endorse the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that the Agreements for Development, dated 30.06.2010, make it clear that the development has to be done within a period of 9 months therefrom-that was on or before 31.03.2011; thus, failure on the part of the OPs to execute the works as agreed would set in motion the two year limitation period from 31.03.2011; as such, the complainant ought to have raised the consumer claim before 31.03.2013.  Although the learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the limitation period was pushed to 2015 by the communications of the OPs assuring that they would endeavour to complete the works or expressing their inability, in our considered opinion, any number of correspondences subsequent to the expiry of the period specified in the development agreements will not extend the period of limitation any further. Also, there was no correspondence at all from the side of the OPs between May-2012 and June-2015.  At any rate, we do not find any error in the findings arrived at by the District Forum for reaching a conclusion that the complaint is hit by limitation.  Hence, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.

             7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order, dated 14.03.2019, passed by the DCDRF, Chennai-south, in C.C. No.448 of 2015.

    

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                             R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/FEBRUARY/2023.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Orders, dated   .02.2023,

pronounced in

F.A. No.164 of 2019

 

           In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order, dated 14.03.2019, passed by the DCDRF, Chennai-south, in C.C. No.448 of 2015.  

 

 

144616126.