This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 04/3/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.150/2009 Mr.Dynandeo Maruti Kudale v/s.Dynansadhana Co-operative Housing Society and another passed by District Consumer Forum Raigad, Alibag.

Undisputed facts are that respondent/complainant is a member of Dynansadhana Co-operative Housing Society, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai.  He is a bus driver in the BEST and said society is of BEST Employees and to make available the houses for its members, accordingly society had purchased plot no.63 and constructed the flats on it. It is alleged that each member was promised 350 built up area flat.  When the flats were constructed and his flat was handed over to the complainant, it is alleged that he was given a flat less than 350 sq.ft. built up area and his area was less by about 80 sq.ft.  Consequently, respondent/complainant made a grievance before the Joint Registrar Co-op. Societies which by its order dated 02/3/2005 opined that instead of 260 sq.ft. respondent/complainant was given flat having area of 230 sq.ft. (both the parties agree that in the order the area mentioned as square meter is wrong, it should be read as sq.ft.) and, thereafter, taking into consideration the say of the society that it had no events to make additional construction and they would supply the deficiency of less area after they get additional FSI so approved by the Joint Registrar and gave further directions about supply of certain documents.  Thereafter, on 29/12/2009 this consumer complaint is filed to seek directions for completion of the building as per sanctioned plan and to make available additional area of 80 sq.ft. along with the balcony to the complainant and some other prohibited reliefs for construction is claimed and compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- plus Rs.40,000/- is also claimed.

Forum below while allowing the consumer complaint directed appellant/o.ps to pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant along with interest as well as Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost. Feeling aggrieved thereby original O.Ps preferred this appeal.

Admitted and heard forthwith with consent of parties.

Factual situation as presented and recounted earlier is not in dispute. Issue of limitation was raised before the forum below and holding that it is a continuous cause of action consumer complaint was held to be within limitation and accordingly entertained.  We find that on the facts of the present case forum below erred in holding that there is continuous cause of action.  In fact in view of the direction of Joint Registrar Co-op. Societies dated 02/3/2005, supra, no cause of action to file a consumer complaint has arisen since upholding the contention of the society to make additional construction only after making available additional FSI, society is supposed to carry out construction. Nothing has been stated about making additional FSI to the society.  Furthermore, if the cause of action relates to the original deficiency of making available less area plan then it starts from the date of possession. Certainly therefore consumer complaint in the year 29/12/2009 is barred by limitation in view of section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is not a case of continuous cause of action. We make it clear at this stage that respondent/complainant is always at liberty to pursue the legal remedy available elsewhere. In view of this we find that we cannot support the impugned order.  Holding accordingly we pass following order:-

                                                ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

Impugned order dated 04/03/2010 is set aside and in turn, consumer complaint stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties