Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/79/2019

R.S.Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Malik Adv.

12 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint	:	79 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	09.04.2019
Date of Decision	:	12.07.2019

 

Sh. R. S. Malik resident of H.No.1064, First Floor, Sector 28-B, Chandigarh.

 

                                         .........Complainant.

Versus

 

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh U.T. Pin-160009 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

2. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Registered Office: DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/ Director Sales & Marketing.

..........Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR.  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sandeep Malik, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the opposite parties.

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

            It is the admitted and not disputed by both the parties that the complainant was allotted a Flat bearing No.DVF-C2/43-GF in the project of the opposite parties, namely, DLF Valley vide allotment letter dated 29.03.2010 and Independent Floor Buyer Agreement was executed on 13.12.2010. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. However, possession, which was to be delivered up-to 12.12.2013, was offered only on 10.10.2016 vide letter (Annexure C-5). After offer of possession, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.4,40,962/- and took possession of the flat, in question, on 28.11.2016 as admitted by him in Para 9 of his complaint. In the Final Statement of Account (FSA) dated 10.10.2016 annexed with offer of possession letter, the opposite parties also gave compensation to the tune of Rs.6,04,032/- in terms of Clause 15 of the Agreement.

2.         The complainant is seeking compensation for the delay period in offering possession of the unit, in question, besides challenging the demand raised in FSA on account of increase in area. He has also sought compensation for mental agony on account of deficiency in service and litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs and Rs.55,000/- respectively.

3.         During the course of argument, Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advisor (Legal) of the opposite parties made two fold arguments. Firstly, since the complainant took possession of the unit, in question, on 28.11.2016 without any protest or demur and without agitating the issue qua demand raised on account of increase in area etc., the present complaint filed on 11.04.2019 is hopelessly time barred. His second limb of argument was that the issue qua increase in area has already been decided by this Commission in favour of the opposite parties in umpteen numbers of cases.

4.         It may be stated here that possession of the unit, in question, was taken by the complainant on 28.11.2016 i.e. within a period of two months from the date of its offer i.e.10.10.2016. While doing so, he did not raise any dispute qua increase in area or there being any snags or defects in the construction of the said unit. He took the possession happily as there is nothing on record to show that after offer of possession or at the time of taking its possession, the complainant ever put his grievance before the opposite parties, by writing any letter or email etc.

5.         It is also pertinent to mention here that the issue qua demand raised on account of increase in area has already been decided by this Commission in various judgments in favour of the opposite parties by holding that the demand raised on that account is always payable by the complainants. In the instant case, the increase in the area is less than 15%, for which, no consent of the complainant was required. Otherwise also, the issue qua legality of demands raised, including that of increase in area, has already been settled by this Commission in Consumer Complaint bearing No.32 of 2017 titled Kavita Devi Vs. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. decided on 17.05.2017 alongwith which, 12 connected complaints were also decided. The view held in Kavita Devi’s case (supra) qua demands raised holds good in this case also.

6.         Now after 2 years 6 months from the date of offer of possession, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 11.04.2019 seeking aforesaid relief.

7.         Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which deals with the limitation period for filing a complaint before the Consumer Fora, being relevant, is extracted hereunder:-

     “24A.      Limitation period. - (l) 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 contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), 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.”

 

8.         Even though, no cause of action had accrued in favour of the complainant to file the instant complaint as there was no grievance of his put forth at the time of taking over the possession, still if we exclude two years limitation period to file the complaint from the date of offer of possession, the complaint is barred by limitation as there is a delay of five months in filing the same. In our opinion, the complaint deserves outright dismissal as the same is hopelessly time barred. The complaint deserves dismissal as the same does not assign any reason or ground for inordinate deliberate delay in filing the complaint after lapse of five months and even no application has been filed for condoning the unexplained, deliberate, hopeless delay in filing the complaint.

9.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation, with no orders as to cost.

10.       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

11.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

12.07.2019

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad