Haryana

Karnal

CC/617/2023

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Properties And Infrastructure Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhir Gupta

03 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 617 of 2023

                                                          Date of instt.26.10.2023

                                                          Date of Decision 03.11.2023

Jasbir Singh (aadhar no.6042 0716 2949) son of Shri Balbir singh, resident of house no.1104, ward no.18, new char chaman Mata Basanti Gamri, Karnal-132001, Rural Part 1, Haryana. Mobile no.94665 56802.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

1. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, having its registered office at 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its authorized Sales office, Ansal API Sushant City, SCO 136, Sector-17, near HUDA office, Jagadhri-135003, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana)

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Suman Singh…..Member

 Present: Shri R.C. Gupta. counsel for the complainant.

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant booked a resident plot in the Township of the OPs. The OPs were allotted a residential plot no.0037-B-1682 area of 300 sq. meters to the complainant and accordingly Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 01.04.2011 was executed between the parties. The total sale consideration of the plot was of Rs.26,49,459/-including IDC and EDC charges and the said amount has been paid by the complainant. The OPs had promised that the possession of the plot shall be given within the period mentioned in the agreement and its annexure but to his surprise the OPs had handed over a customer ledger account as on 13.08.2012 maintained by the OPs, vide which they have confirmed that an amount of Rs.19,39,709/- was paid by the complainant till date but OPs did not bother to mention anything about the performance of their part of contract in any manner despite having received major cost of the plot in question whereas complainant has always been willing and ready to pay the balance amount. The complainant has already paid Rs.26,49,459/- to the OPs. It is further averred that OPs have failed to complete the project and offer actual physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant alongwith requisite information and documents, as the OPs neither had any sanction nor made any attempts to complete the formalities at their end so as to handover the actual physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.09.2023 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.26,49,459/-alongwith interest @ 20% per annum as per agreement and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment on account of mental pain and agony and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard. Record perused.

3.             As per version of the complainant, he booked a residential plot no.0037-B-1682 in the Township of the OPs. A Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 01.04.2011 was executed between the parties. The total sale consideration of the plot in question was of Rs.26,49,459/-. OPs have failed to complete the project and offer actual physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant within stipulated period.

4.             Now the question arises for consideration is that whether the present complaint is well within period of limitation or not?

5.             Limitation for filing a complaint has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

1. The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the 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 Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

6.             As per aforesaid Section of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present complaint, a plot buyer’s agreement had been executed between the parties on 01.04.2011. Complainant has made the payment till 2012. From the last date of payment, there is no correspondence between the parties. Only serving the legal notice dated 01.04.2023 does not mean to extend the limitation period for filing the present complaint. Moreover, there is no separate application on the file, to condone the delay or has not made any prayer for condonation of delay in the  complaint. No sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for not filing the complaint within limitation period. The cause of action has arisen in the year 2012 but the complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2023 i.e. after the gap of more than 11 years. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. Furthermore, the complainant has relied upon the payment plan. As per said plan 95% amount of the basic price was to be paid within 435 days from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement. The total basic price of the plot in question was Rs.26,49,459/- but complainant has not deposited the 95% of the basic price as per payment plan, rather complainant has deposited only Rs.19,39,904/-. Hence, complainant himself is at fault for not making the payment as per payment plan.

7.             Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed in limini. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 03.11.2023

  President,       

            District Consumer Disputes                          

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                      (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Suman Singh)         

                          Member                           Member