Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1490/2018

RAJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

SURABHI SHUKLA

17 Dec 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 17.12.2018

Date of Decision : 08.01.2019

COMPLAINT NO.1490/18

                                               

 

Mr. Raj Kumar,

House No.783,

Sector-21, Gurgaon.                                            …..Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

Delhi Development Authority,

Vikas Sadan, Near INA Market,

New Delhi.                                                     .....Opposite party

 

 

CORAM

 

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?       

                                                                                                Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. Facts of the present case are peculiar. Flat no.215 was allotted by the OP to Shri Dalbir  was GPA of said Shri Dalbir Singh.  Conveyance deed was executed in favour of complainant copy of which is Annexure-2. Other allottees of the same scheme were directed to the charged with cost of construction prevailing in 1990 vide order dated 24.11.06 passed by this Commission in CC no.74/96 tiled as Residents Welfare Association Vs. DDA.
2. Complainants contacted OP but OP did not deliver demand letters. The complainant was discriminated and was given demand letter in Jan, 1992 after 21 months of draw od allottees  were given demand letter of Rs.1,90,500/-. Projected cost was Rs.18,000/- only.
3. The complainant applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold vide letter dated 19.11.08. He wrote number of letters but no reply was received. He received a reply under RTI Act in response to his application dated 31.05.12 that the case was under process. He received demand letter of Rs.11,18,848/- dated 26.12.14. He was compelled to deposit the same. conveyance deed was executed on 16.02.15. He filed an application before Delhi Government Mediation Centre, Parliament Street, New Delhi on 22.12.16 but matter could not be settled there. The Mediation Centre closed the case vide letter dated 09.10.17.
4. Penalty was unjustified. The complainant was ready to bear interest on amount till 1999 as complete amount has been paid by that time. Hence this complaint for directing the OP to charge the same amount as has been ordered by this Commission in CC No.164/92 decided on 30.07.93. Copy of said decision has not been filed by the complainant.
5. I have gone through the material on record and heard arguments for the purpose of admission. There lies a rub in the case of the complainant. At the most cause of action arose in his favour on 16.02.15 when conveyance deed was executed. Subsequent efforts for settlement through Mediation does not give rise to fresh cause of action. The limitation for tiling a consumer complaint is two years under Section 24A Consumer Protection Act. Complaint filed on 22.11.18 is bitterly barred by limitation. Complainant himself has moved an application for condonation of delay. The application does not disclose any cogent ground for condonation of delay. Law is that condoning of delay is filing complaint is a serious matter as there is no  such provisions for condoning delay in filing suit in Civil Court. In this regard I have the privilege to follow the decision of National Commission in RP No.2618/02 titled as C.H. Vithal Reddy vs. Manager District Cooperative Central Bank decided on 04.12.02.The application for condonation is dismissed. With this the complaint should automatically stand dismissed as being barred by limitation.
6. Still I may mention that correspondence by complainant can not extend the limitation. In this regard reference may be made to following decisions.

It was held in RP no.26/12 titled as Subastian Md vs. N.J. Devadas decided by National Commission on 13.07.12 and OP no.55/01 titled as Hansa Wire Products (P) Ltd. vs. Union India Insurance Company decided on 18.11.11 that representations do not extend the limitation.

In Jansata Sehkari Awas Samiti I (2016) CPJ 190  National Commission held that notice sent by complainant does not give rise to cause of action and does not extend the limitation.

In Kandi Mala Vs. National Commission Company (2009) 7 STC 768 it was held that correspondence between the parties does not extend limitation.

7. Not only this, after taking possession and after execution of conveyance deed, complainant does not remain a consumer as per decision of 5 member bench of National Commission in A.N. Sehgal vs. DDA I (1996) CPJ 34. Similar view has been taken by National Commission in RP No.1128/06 titled as Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. DDA decided on 08.04.10. To the same effect is decision of National Commission in Harpal Arya vs. Housing Board II (2016) CPJ 26 and Smita Roy vs. Excel Construction II (2012) CPJ 204.
8. The complaint is dismissed in limine.
9. Copy of the order be sent both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                                                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                                                                                                                                                                                          MEMBER (JUDICIAL)