Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/691

AmarjitSingh Ghai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chaddhas developers - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 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:21.11.2013

Complaint Case. No.691/13                                           Date of order:31.08.2017

IN  MATTER OF

AmarjitSingh GhaiS/oSardarDhianSingh  617 Old Housing Board, Sector-13,Karnal, Haryana-132001

                                                                                                 Complainant

VERSUS

1.        Chaddha’s Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd, 33 N.W.A, Club Road,Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi -110026  and also at  29/16 Punjabi Bagh, West  Punjabi Bagh  Extension, New   Delhi.                       

Opposite party no.1

2.        Dimple Chaddha Director, Chaddha’s Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. , 29/16 Punjabi Bagh, West  Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi. 

                                                                                                Opposite party no.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            ShriAmarjit Singh Ghai named above here in the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act herein after  in short referred  as the Actfor directions to Chaddha’s Developers and Pvt. Ltd.and another here in after in short referred as the opposite partiesto handover  possession ofplot no.  B-33, Canton Residency, TarantaranRoad, Amritsar and in alternative to pay Rs, 11, 83,190/- with interest @ 24% p.a.till realization and  compensation of  Rs.1,00,000/-  on account of physical and mental sufferings on part of the opposite parties.

             The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal   of the complaint as stated are that  the complainant booked a  plot no. B 33-Canton Residency, Tarantaran Road, Amritsar hereinafter for convenience referred as the ploton initial  payment of Rs. 2, 50,000/- vide receipt no. 1674 dated 15.12.2017.  The complainant paid the remaining sale price of the plot to the opposite parties by way of installments.  The last installment  was  paid  vide receipt no. 1912 dated 07.03.2009.  The complainant vide letter dated 04.03.2009  of the  opposite parties  received  acknowledgment  of full and  final payment of the plot.  The complainant  several times  asked the opposite parties to execute registered  sale deed of the Plot  in  his favour and handover  possession  of the same.  But the opposite partiesfailed  to  execute  registered sale deed in his favour and handover possession of the plot.  Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to execute registered sale deed  of the plot   and  handover  possession  of the same  in alternative to pay Rs, 11,83,190/- cost of the plot  with interest of @ 24% p.a.  till realization and pay  compensation of  Rs.1,00,000/-  on account of physical and mental sufferings on the part of the opposite parties.

            After notice the opposite parties appeared  and filed  reply contesting  the complaint  and raising preliminary objections of maintainability  of the complaint before this Forum, concealment of true and material  facts, limitation, cause of action and the opposite parties vide letter dated 04.03.2009  confirmed full and final payment towards cost of the  plot  informing the complainant  to get sale deed  registered and take possession  of the plot.But he failed to get the sale deed registered, therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

However, on merits the opposite parties admitted  booking of the plot by the complainant with the opposite parties  and payment of entire sale  consideration and asserted that despite letter dated 04.03.2009  the complainant  failed to get the sale deed executed and registered and take  possession of the plot.   Therefore, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and  once again  prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties  controverting  stand taken  by the  opposite parties and asserted his stand taken in the complaint.  He further asserted that the complainant was always  ready and  willing to get the sale deed executed  and registered  and take  possession of the plot.  But the complainant failed to get the sale deed  executed  and registered from competent  authority and  take possession of the plot and again  prayed for the directions to the opposite parties. 

             When Sh. Amarjit Singh Ghaicomplainant  was asked to lead evidence  he tendered in evidence  his affidavit  narrating  facts of the complaint.  The complainant also relied upon   Annexure-Iadvertisement with scheme of Canton Residency, Annexure-II receipts   no. 1675 dated 05.12.2009 , 1676 dated 05.12.2007, 1677 dated 05.12.2007, 1678 dated 05.12.2007 and  1872 dated 30.09.2008,  Annexure -IIIreceipt  No. 1912 dated 07.03.2009 of full and final payment,Annexure-IV  statement  of  account of Punjab and  Sindh Bank  of the complainant, Annexure-Vletters dated 04.03.2009  and 03.08.2009 .

The opposite parties with reply have filed letter 04.03.2009.  The opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.09.2016. 

The complainant in support of his complaint, documents and version  has also submitted written arguments. 

We have heard  the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

After having  heard the complainant  and going through  the record it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant booked a plot no.  B-33, Canton Residency, Tarantaran Road, Amritsar with  the opposite parties .  The complainant  paid entire sale consideration of the plot .  The  opposite parties vide letter dated  04.03.2009 informed the complainant  of receipt of  whole consideration.  The complainant has filed the present complaint on 21.11.2013.  Therefore,  cause of action arose in favour of the complainant   against the opposite parties on 04.03.2009.

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

Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.

 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   the provisions of section   24A of  the  Act  it  

is evident that limitation for filing a complaint before the District Forum, State Commission  and National Commission is two years from the date of cause of action arose in  favour of the complainant and  a complaint can be entertained by the respective foras  after two years from the cause of action if the fora comes to conclusion that there are sufficient  grounds to condon delay  in filing the complainant.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant could file the complaint within two years  from cause of action.   But he filed  the complaint  after lapse  of a period of more than four years from the cause of action.   The complainant  has  also not filed  any application  for condonation of  delay.  Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complaint is hopelessly barred by imitation. 

            Resultantly there is no merit in the complaint.   The same fails  and is hereby dismissed.

Order pronounced on : 31.08.2017

 

• 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