Haryana

StateCommission

A/1008/2015

PARMOD JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

APEX BUILDTECH PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

03 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.1008 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution: 26.11.2015      Date of Decision: 03.12.2015

 

Parmod Jain S/o Sh.Shyam Lal Jain R/o House No.69, Sector-15, Sonepat (Hr).

 …..Appellant

                                      VERSUS

1. M/s Apex Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 514, Aggarwal Millenium tower Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi-34.
2. Sh.Virender Jain Director M/s Apex Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 514, Aggarwal Millenium tower Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi-34.
3. Sh.Vikram Wadhwa Director M/s Apex Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 514, Aggarwal Millenium tower Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi-34.

          …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.Ravi Shankar Garg, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by learned District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Sonepat ( In short “District Forum”)  vide which the complaint was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2.      It was alleged by the complainant that he booked residential flat with the opposite parties (O.Ps.) and deposited Rs.10,49,375/- from time to time till the month of August 2008, but, they did not take any step to develop the project.  In the month of September 2014, he visited the office of the O.Ps. and enquired about delivery of possession of the flat.  It was told that the construction was in full swing and possession would be delivered shortly.  He sent notice dated 16.03.2015 to the O.Ps. to deliver the possession, but, to no result.

3.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that notices were sent to him time and again to make payment, but, he did not respond.  Last payment was made by him on 27.05.2008. vide letter dated 15.09.2012 he was informed about cancellation of allotment of flat and forfeiture of booking amount.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, accruing cause of action, jurisdiction of District Forum, concealment of true facts, limitation etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as mentioned above.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

7.      It was argued by learned counsel for the complainant that vide letter dated 15.09.2012 only his booking amount was forfeited and O.Ps. did not return the remaining amount  so the cause of action was continuing.  He also sent notice dated 16.03.2015 so the complaint was within time.

8.      This argument is devoid of any force.  As per complainant as well as O.Ps. no payment was made by the complainant after the year 2008.  His allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 15.09.2012.  As per section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”) he was to file complaint within two years therefrom, but, he has filed this complaint on 10.04.2015.  If O.Ps. did not return the remaining amount it does not mean that cause of action was continuing and he was having right to file complaint after two years.  Opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena fernandes 2011 CTJ 1 (supreme court) CP) observed that:-

“Section 24A (1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action.  In other words, the consumer forums to not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.    This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under section 24A (2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under section 24 a (1).  If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24a(2), the consumer Forums will have no option but to dismiss the same.”

          The present case is fully covered by V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena fernandes (Supra).

9.      These arguments are of no avail. Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

December 03rd, 2015	Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench