| Complaint Case No. CC/633/2018 | | ( Date of Filing : 27 Aug 2018 ) |
| | | | 1. Sri Krishnanand Singh | | S/o Sri Anand Kr. Singh, Flat no.-906, Arvind Tower, 242/1B, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata - 700 004. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Central Bank of India & Ors. | | Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. | | 2. Sri Rajeev Rishi, Managing Director & Chief Executive officer, Central Bank of India | | Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. | | 3. Sri B.K. Divakara, Executive Director, Central Bank of India | | Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. | | 4. P. Ramana Murthy, Executive Director, Central Bank of India | | Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. | | 5. Sri B.S. Shekhawat, Executive Director, Central Bank of India | | Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021. | | 6. The General Manager, Central Bank of India | | Asset Recovery Br., Zonal Office, Kolkata, 33, N.S. Road, Kolkata - 700 001. | | 7. The Asstt. General Manager, Central Bank of India | | Asset Recovery Br., Zonal Office, Kolkata, 33, N.S. Road, Kolkata - 700 001. | | 8. V.K. Kulshrestha, Authorised Officer | | Asset Recovery Br., Zonal Office, Kolkata, 33, N.S. Road, Kolkata - 700 001. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Order No. 2 date: 13-09-2018 This day is fixed for passing order in respect of the admissibility of the case. The complaint case is filed over alleged non-delivery of possession of the subject flat by the OPs despite payment of the entire requisite sum to them. Admittedly, the Complainant was issued a Sale Certificate by the OPs on 07-06-2012 and the entire sale consideration was deposited within the month of June, 2012. Thus, it seems that the cause of action of the present case arose in the month of June, 2012. Against such backdrop, the rationale of filing this complaint case after nearly 6 years remains inexplicable. Notwithstanding it is claimed by the Complainant that in the month of May, 2018, the OPs for the first time intimated the Complainant about their inability to handover possession of the subject flat citing unexplained technical and internal difficulties, it transpires from the reply letter dated 26-06-2018 of the Ld. Advocate for the OPs that all through the Complainant was kept in the loop about the difficulties faced by the OPs from time to time. In any case, it is hardly believable that after paying a whooping sum of Rs. 27,77,000/-, one would simply keep quiet for long 6 years and thereafter visit the bank to enquire about the fate of delivery of schedule flat. There was clear lacunae on the part of the Complainant. It is indeed surprising that, nowhere in the petition of complaint the Complainant made any whisper regarding his inaction for such long duration of time. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 make no bones of the fact that any complaint filed beyond the statutory period of two years since occurrence of cause of action must be properly explained. Such basic statutory requirement being not fulfilled, we are not inclined to admit this case. The complaint case, thus, stands dismissed being hit by limitation. | |
