DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.41/2010
Sh. Anil Kumar Anant
A-3, Rahul Kunj, Dallupura,
P.O. Vasundharra Enclave- 110096
….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 11.01.2010
Date of Order : 01.06.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking refund of Rs.21,409/- as interest paid on home loan and Rs.20,853/- on account of interest charged by OP for alleged delayed payment and Rs.13,996/- as interest for delay in giving possession by OP.
It is the case of the complainant that his father Sri Jaswant Singh was allotted a flat number 179 Pocket 2, Sector 14, Phase II, Dwarka. The complainant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- by 19.07.2002 as confirmation deposit. This amount was deposited on 16.07.2002. Complainant applied to change the flat from hire purchase to cash down payment vide application dated 09.09.2002 and NOC was sought from OP to mortgage the flat to ICICI Bank limited from whom the loan was to be sanctioned.
The father of the complainant then applied for transfer of allotment in favour of the complainant on 12.11.2002. The allotment was transferred on 25.11.2002. It is further stated that Rs.3,97,602/- sanctioned by ICICI bank home loan was deposited on 09.12.2002 prior to the date of extension. It is the case of the complainant that despite visiting the OP several times, the possession of the flat was delivered after a long delay even when the full payment was made to the OP, which was eventually given on 18.08.2003 after several requests. On this ground the complainant is seeking refund of interest which he had to pay as interest on home loan and interest on the payments that he made in due time to the OP as also interest on account of delay in handing over of possession.
On the other hand, the OP has taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is time barred under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also stated that the complainant has neither proved deficiency in service not proved any negligence on the part of the OP. It is also stated that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act as there is no hiring of services. It is also stated that the complainant had taken the possession without any protest and therefore he cannot repudiate part of transaction.
The facts are mostly not denied by the OP but it is clarified that the complainant submitted the documents on 25.03.2003. As per policy he was asked to pay 10% cost of the flat if he wished to have time extension. The complainant complied with and deposited the desired amount, hence time extension was allowed to him. The OP has vehemently denied that the sanction of home loan was pending due to want of NOC from the OP. It is further denied that there was any delay on the part of the OP for issuance of possession letter.
It is stated that the conveyance deed papers were issued to the complainant on 22.05.2003 for stamping from collector of stamps as well as a request for deposit of Rs.15,000/- as balance cost of flat was made. The complainant paid the same on 25.06.2003, at that time the finance wing of the OP reported that a deposit of Rs.20,800/- as interest on belated payment had to be made and the complainant was informed accordingly on 21.07.2003. The complainant deposited this amount on 22.07.2003 and conveyance deed papers were submitted on the same date the possession letter was issued to the complainant on 28.07.2003. The complainant requested for execution of the conveyance date on 16.07.2004 and he was called on 20.08.2004 for execution of the conveyance deed papers but the complainant did not attend the office of the OP and again requested on 02.08.2005 and thereafter the conveyance deed papers were executed on 07.09.2005. It is therefore stated that there was no delay in offering for issuing possession by the OP.
Before this Commission can go into the details of the case in on merits it is important to decide whether the case has been filed within the limitation period. As seen from the records the possession was delivered by the OP on 07.09.2005 and the same was accepted by the complainant without any demur or protest. It is also seen that the present complaint has been filed only in the year 2010 i.e. after
5 years from the date of taking of possession by the complainant and in between there has been no correspondence of any kind between the complainant and the OP.
In Sh. Ashok Kumar Saina v/s DDA FA 183 of 2007 the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the case of State Bank of India v/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) [AIR 2008 SC2210] that “Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which prescribe limitation period for admission of a complaint, is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action”.
As has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission in Gian Gupta vs DDA CC No. 155/2010 decided on 16.08.2021 “The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the Complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if it 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.”
Therefore, we are of the considered view that this complaint is belatedly time barred and therefore deserves to be dismissed.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
