DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.298/22

Gurucharam Singh Nayyer

R/o J-3/157, Rajouri Garden

First Floor, New Delhi-110027.                              …Complainant

                                                VERSUS

Delhi Development Authority

Vikas Sadan

INA

New Delhi-110003.                                            …Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution  : 14.10.2022                                  

Date of Order         : 22.02.2023

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

The present case has been filed for restoration of booking-cum-registration  in Rohini Residential Scheme of 1981.  The only question at the stage of admission is whether the present complaint is barred by limitation.

It is stated by the complainant that he had booked a plot of 100 Sq. Yds. under the scheme by paying Rs.5,000/- as registration-cum-booking amount dated 27.03.1981. It is further stated that after nearly 30 years on 07.06.2012, OP wrote a letter to the complainant asking them to submit an affidavit stating that he has not booked any plot/flat in any other scheme floated by OP.  It is further mentioned in the complaint that since the complainant was abroad complainant’s daughter wrote a letter dated 27.06.2012 that the complainant had never booked a flat under the NPRS Scheme 1979.  This letter was submitted along with an affidavit on 10^th July 2012 alongwith other documents which were duly acknowledged by the DDA.  Thereafter, it was only in 2019 that the complainant started enquiring from the OP for information on status of his application and legal notice to this effect was sent only in the year 2022 and the present complainant has been filed in the same year. 

The time limitation for filing a complaint has been provided in Section 69 of the Act of 2019 as under:

1. The District Commission, 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 contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

In the present case, the cause of action had arisen to the complainant at the time when a letter dated 27.06.2012 was written by the complainant that her father had never booked a flat under the NPRS Scheme 1979 or/and this letter was submitted along with an affidavit on 10^th July 2012 alongwith other documents which were duly acknowledged by the DDA and thereafter no correspondence/effort has been made by the complainant to follow it up before 2019. 

After going through the facts of his application it is clearly made out that the present case is time barred as the affidavit sought for by the OP was submitted by the complainant in 2012.  Therefore, this Commission is of the view that the present complainant is belatedly time barred. 

        Dismissed in limine.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.

Order be uploaded on the website.