Date of filing : - 29.03.2016

Date of hearing : - 08.01.2018

          The instant complaint under Section 17 (inadvertently mentioned under Section 18) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the instance of intending purchasers against the developer / builder (Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3) and landowners (O.P. Nos. 4 to 7) and others on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of them in respect of a flat in a consumer dispute of housing construction.

          Succinctly put, complainants’ case is that on 13.06.2008 his predecessor – in - interest has purchased one flat measuring about 347 sq. ft. super built up area being flat No. D – 16, at ‘Shyamsundar’ Apartment lying and situated at Mouza + P.S – Chandernagore, Dist – Hooghly within Ward No. – 16 of Chandernagore Municipal Corporation at a total consideration of Rs. 2,65,500/-. After transfer of the flat the Complainants have been living thereon. The Complainant alleged that some employees of corporation arrived at the Apartment on 16.02.2015 to demolish the construction on the ground that it was unauthorised. Hence the Complainant has lodged the complaint with prayer for several reliefs.

          In the petition of complaint the Complainant has prayed for following remedies  and the breakup has been shown in paragraph 22 of the petition of complaint as follows–

          Under the scheme of the Act, the original complaint can be filed in the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission depending upon the value of the cost of the goods / services. Section 11, Section 17 and Section 21 of the Act provides that pecuniary jurisdiction of the respective Fora. Section 11 provides that the District Fora shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, does not exceed Rs. 20,00,000/- . According to Section 17, the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint where the value of the goods or services and compensation claimed exceeds Rs. 20,00,000.- but does not exceed 1 crore. Presently, no Court Fee on the claim preferred before the Fora concerned is payable. Therefore, tendency to defeat the hierarchy as per the scheme of the Act is always there.

          In the instant case, the value of the subject flat was Rs. 2,65,500/- but the Complainant seeking disproportionate demand of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. The above act of the Complainant obviously is malafide with a view to defeat the scheme of the Act. In a decision in FA/515/2015 (Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta Vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd and 4 others) the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission has observed that the Consumer Fora at various level are required to guard against the inflated claims with malafide intentions to defeat the hierarchy of the Fora concerned.

          On this ground alone, the complaint should be rejected.

The complaint is also hopelessly barred by limitation. From the contents of petition of complaint it emerges that the Complainant purchased the flat by way of a Deed of Conveyance on 13.06.2008 and since then he along with his family has been living thereon. At the time of filing the petition of complaint, the Complainant did not file any application U/s 24A of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. For appreciation of the matter, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Section 24A of the Act which runs as follows –

      “24A. 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 the cause of action has arisen. 

     (2) Notwithstanding anything contend 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”.

          The above provisions is clearly peremptory and mandatory in nature requiring the Consumer Fora to see at the time of entertaining the complaint, whether it has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action.  In a decision reported in 2009 (4) CPR 17 (Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. – vs. – National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court after adopting the view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) CPR 107 (State Bank of India –Vs- B.S. Agricultural Industries) has observed – “As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing.  In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it.  If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside”.

          It is well settled that by making correspondences or by serving legal notice or by making representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended.  In such a situation keeping in view the legislative mandate and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, the Commission has no authority to entertain the complaint.

          In view of the above, the complaint is rejected as it was filed for unjust enrichment and also hopelessly barred by limitation.