JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Avsi Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. 2. Above appeal has been filed against the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 25.05.2023, passed in CC/111/2021, dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation. 3. Mr. Ankush Wadhera and Mr. Anil Malik filed (the appellants herein) filed CC 111 of 2021 with the State Commission for directing the opposite parties to (a) pay compensation for delay in handover of apartment/unit as per order dated 03.01.2020 passed by this Hon’ble Commission in C.C. No. 351 of 2015 and as well as the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter bearing C.A. No. 3864-3889 of 2020 along with interest @18% per annum along with the Compensation provided as per the ABA till realization of the said amount(s); (b) compensate the Complainant(s) an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum till realization of the said amount(s) for mental agony, harassment suffered due to deficiencies in services by not providing amenities/facilities promised by the Opposite Party; (c) provide all facilities and amenities as represented and promised at the time of booking the unit by the complainants; and (d) any other order as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the interest of justice. 4. Mr. Ankush Wadhera (Complainant No.1) applied for allotment of an apartment in the project of the Opposite Party No.1, namely, “DLF Capital Greens” situated at 15, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. Opposite Party No.1, vide letter dated 05.10.2009, allotted an apartment bearing number CGL - 186 to him and an Apartment Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 26.03.2010. As per clause 11 (a) of the agreement, possession of the said apartment was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of application i.e., on or before 29.09.2012. Opposite Party No.1 offered the possession of the said apartment on 09.11.2017, with a delay of 4 years and 11 months. Complainant No.1 transferred the apartment to his father in law Mr. Anil Malik (Complainant No.2/Appellant No.2), which was confirmed by the opposite parties, vide letter dated 22.01.2009. The Complainants being aggrieved by delay in handing over possession of the flat, filed consumer complaint No.111 of 2021 with the State Commission. 5. Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint inter alia raising the preliminary objections of limitation. Offer of possession was issued on 27.06.2017; after receipt of balance payment on 27.10.2017, the opposite parties issued no dues certificate on 09.11.2017. Thereafter, the complainant took possession without any protest. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 6. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 25.05.2023 dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the complainants. 7. Facts of the case are not disputed by the parties. The only question is whether the complaint was filed within the statutory period of limitation of 2 years or it was time barred. It is admitted that offer of possession by opposite party No.1 was issued on 09.11.20017 and the complaint was filed on 06.07.2021 after expiry of statutory period of limitation, with a delay of about one year and eight months. As far as argument of the petitioners that the opposite parties confirmed the transfer of the flat in the name of petitioner No.2 on 09.11.2019 is concerned, it is an inter se transaction between the petitioners and has nothing to do with the filing of the complaint. Counsel for the appellants also submitted that an association of other flat buyers, namely, Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association filed CC/351/2015 and CC/2047/2016 before this Commission wherein this Commission, vide judgment dated 03.01.2020 granted delayed compensation to the complainant in that case. The complainants were under the bonafide impression that pursuant to the relief granted in aforesaid consumer complaints, the opposite parties shall also pay compensation to the complainants. It is but obvious that the opposite party is bound to satisfy the decree in respect of the complainants and the other flat buyers who were not party in CC/351/2015 and CC/2047/2016, are not entitled for any relief. Mistake of law cannot be said to be a ground for condonation of delay. The benefit of the judgment of Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 is not available to the appellants as the Supreme Court waived the limitation from 15.03.2020 to 30.05.2022, due to Covid-19 and the limitation of the appellants/complainants to file the complaint already expired on 09.11.2017 before the lockdown. The State Commission was, therefore, justified in not condoning the delay of about one year and eight months. I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order so as to interfere in the appellate jurisdiction. O R D E R In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed. |
