Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/260/2019

N.P.Sundar, S/o Perumal, No.C-48,Ponniyar Street, Block 25, Neyveli Town ship, Kurinji padi Taluk, Cuddalore District. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Engineer P.Dhanushu, S/o Periyasamy 2/837, Perumal Koil Street, Thiruchitrambalam, Vanur Taluk, Vill - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.Janarthanan

31 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

      BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                           PRESIDENT

                    Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL                      MEMBER

     

COMMON ORDER IN

F.A.NO.260/2019 AND FA.NO.261/2019

(Against order in CC.NO.31/2015 and CC.No.30/2015 on the file of the DCDRC, Villupuram)

 

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF JANUARY 2023   

 

FA.NO.260/2019 

 

N.P.SUNDAR

S/o. Perumal

No.C-48, Ponniyar Street, Block 25                                       M/s. V.Janardhanan

Neyveli Township, Kurinjipadi Taluk                                             Counsel for

Cuddalore District                                                        Appellant / Complainant

 

                        Vs.

 

Engineer P. Dhanushu

S/o. Periyasamy

2/837, Perumal Koil Street                                                     M/s. K.Sivakumar

Thiruchitrambalam, Vanur Taluk                                                  Counsel for

Villupuram District – 605 111                                         Respondent / Opposite party

 

FA.NO.261/2019

 

K. Babu

S/o. C.Kuppusamy

No.B-21/B, Cable Street, Block 26,                                       M/s. V.Janardhanan

Neyveli Township, Kurinjipadi Taluk                                           Counsel for

Cuddalore District                                                        Appellant / Complainant

 

                        Vs.

 

Engineer P. Dhanushu

S/o. Periyasamy

2/837, Perumal Koil Street                                                      M/s. K.Sivakumar

Thiruchitrambalam, Vanur Taluk                                                 Counsel for

Villupuram District – 605 111                                         Respondent / Opposite party

 

 

          The complainants had filed two separate complaints before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, these appeals have been preferred by the complainants   praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.21.2.2019 in CC.No.31/2015, and CC.No.30/2015 respectively.

 

          These appeals coming on before us for hearing finally on 21.11.2022, upon hearing the arguments of  both parties, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following common order:

 

JUSTICE   R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT    

 

1.       The appeals in FA.No.260/2019 and FA.No.261/2019 have been filed by the respective complainants as against the order passed by the District Commission, Villupuram in  CC.No.31/2015 and  CC.No.30/2015 vide order dt.21.2.2019.

 

2.       Since the issue involved in both appeals are one and the same, these appeals are heard together, and are disposed of by way of common order. 

 

3.       For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as arrayed in the original complaints filed before the District Commission.

 

4.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issues involved in the appeal are as follows:

 

          The complainants were the employees of Neyveli Lignite Corporation.  After retirement, they have availed housing loan from Indian Bank to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- respectively on 28.11.2011.  The opposite party is a builder, running business, in the name and style of New Hytech Constructions at Thiruchitrambalam area.  The opposite party had approached the complainants for constructing residential premises.  The complainants have entered into an agreement with the opposite party for the purpose of constructing the residential premises on 24.11.2010.  The costs of construction were fixed at Rs.15,09,600/- and Rs.12,97,200/- respectively.  On completion of construction, the complainants have found that there are lot of defects in the construction regarding wood materials, sanitary and electricity, plumbing, ratio of mixing cements etc.  The opposite party had handed over only the unfinished premises.  Hence the complainants have filed two separate complaints viz. CC.No.31/2015 and CC.No.30/2015 against the opposite party, praying for a direction to refund the excess amount, alongwith interest, compensation and cost. 

 

5.       The opposite party had denied the allegations raised by the complainants by filing version.

 

6.       During the pendency of the complaints, the opposite party had taken out petitions vide CMP.No.14/2017 in CC.No.30/2015 and CMP.15/2017 in CC.No.31/2015 by raising preliminary issues, and thus prayed to dismiss the complaints as barred by limitation. 

          The main contention of the opposite party before the District Commission is that the building was handed over as early as in 2012 itself.  Therefore, the cause of action arose in the year 2012.  As per Sec.24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986, any complaint shall not be admitted unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.  Whereas these complaints have been filed after two years of from the date of cause of action, and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

7.       The District Commission, after careful consideration, accepting the stand of the opposite party, raised by way of the filing petitions, had allowed the petitions and consequently dismissed the complaints.  Aggrieved over the said orders, the complainants have filed these appeals. 

 

8.       We have heard the learned counsels appearing on bothsides, perused the materials placed on record, and the impugned orders. 

 

9.       The learned counsel for the appellants / complainants would contend that the allegation of defect in the construction viz. the floor of the building had gone down within 2½ years of its completion in the year 2012 due to poor quality of flooring, and the opposite party had assured to rectify the defects on 8.7.2015, but failed to do so.  Therefore the cause of action arose on 8.7.2015 only, thereby the complaint is maintainable. 

 

10.     The Respondent strongly denied the above contention, and argued in support of the findings of the District Commission.

11.     In this connection, it is pertinent to see that in support of the allegations raised by the complainants, with regard to the date of cause of action, they have not produced any documentary evidence. 

          Moreover, as seen from the complaints, the complainants have clearly stated that the cause of action for the complaint arose at Thiruchitrambalam, when the building agreement was made and continues on 24.11.2010 to 26.2.2012 (CC.No.30/2015) 24.11.2010 to 30.5.2012 (CC.No.31/2015). Admittedly the complainants also have not sought for the permission of the District Commission for condoning the delay in filing the complaint, as per sec.24-A(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Further we could also not find any averments in the complaints with regard to the continuous cause of action till 2015.  Therefore, looking at any angle, we hold that these complaints are hit by limitation,  as such we find no infirmity in the findings of the District Commission.  Accordingly, these appeals are deserves dismissal.

 

 12.    In the result, both the appeals are dismissed by confirming the orders of the District Commission in CC.No.30/2015 and CC.No.31/2015 dt.21.2.2019.  There is no order as to cost throughout in both the appeals.

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                R. SUBBIAH

           MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT