Haryana

Panchkula

CC/3/2016

TARLOCHAN SINGH WALIA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAURANSH ASSOCIATES. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K SUD.

11 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	03 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	08.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	11.05.2016

 

Tarlochan Singh Walia, aged about 64 years, s/o Late Sh.Amar Singh Walia, R/o House No.1052, Sector-25, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Gauransh Associates through its Proprietor Sh.Manav Malhotra son of Sh.R.K.Malhotra, SCO No.70, First Floor, Swastik Vihar, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector-5, Panchkula.

2.       Sh.Manav Malhotra s/o Sh.R.K.Malhotra Proprietor of Gauransh Associates, R/o House No.15-C, Group Housing Society No.39, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector-5, Panchkula.  

2.       M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd., through its Managing Director, 28 ECE House, K.G.Marg, New Delhi-110001.                                                                          

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

For the Parties:     Mr.Nitin Sood, Adv., for the complainant. 

Defence of Ops No.1 and 2 already struck off.

OP No.3 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that after the allurement by the Op No.2, the complainant purchased a plot No.104-EP-103-305 measuring 305 sq. yards for an amount of Rs.65,63,905/- including EDC, IDW, PLC charges etc. to be paid in installments in consonance with the completion of the project. The Op No.2 sold the plot at the premium of Rs.11 lacs + paid up amount of Rs.2 lacs. The complainant paid Rs.11 lacs to the op No.2 as premium on 22.06.2011 from account No.31250065369 of State Bank of India, Sector-10, Panchkula. When the complainant asked the Op No.2 to execute the necessary documents of plots in his favour on 22.06.2011 then the Op No.2 took a sum of Rs.2 lacs from the complainant i.e. cheque No.391894 dated 22.06.2011 for Rs.90,000/- in the name of M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. and another cheque No.391895 dated 22.06.2011 for Rs.1,10,000/- in the name of Gauransh Associates. After receipt the amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, the Op No.1 issued a receipt dated 23.06.2011 as full and final payment on account of premium of plot. The OP No.1 has also acknowledged the receipt of Rs.90,000/-. The Op No.1 through Op No.2 also handed over an affidavit-cum-undertaking duly attested by the notary dated 22.06.2011. The Op No.2 also got signed from the complainant a joint letter which was also signed by the Op No.1 and 2 for transfer/assignment/nomination of the provisional registration/registration dated Nil of the plot/flat/village in Mohali Punjab. The complainant requested the Ops several times to issue the allotment letter of the plot in his favour and to deliver the physical possession of the plot but to no avail. The complainant requested the Ops to refund his hard earned money with interest but to no avail. The complainant issued a notice dated 01.10.2015 to the Ops and after receiving the notice, the Ops No.1 and 2 approached the complainant with a proposal in writing to refund the amount of the complainant in installments and have also drafted a compromise which has been corrected by the complainant and thereafter, amended compromise was prepared on 21.10.2015 but after a week, refused to sign the same. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops No.1 and 2, through their proprietor Sh.Manav Malhotra, appeared before this Forum on 15.02.2016 and sought time for filing of the written statement. On 08.03.2016, the Ops No.1 and 2 again sought time for filing written statement and the case was adjourned for 16.03.2016 for filing written statement. On 16.03.2016, none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.1 and 2 and case was adjourned to 31.03.2016 for filing written statement of Ops No.1 and 2. Again on 31.03.2016, none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.1 and 2 nor filed written statement after availing opportunities and the defence of the Ops No.1 and 2 was ordered to be struck off, vide order dated 31.03.2016.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.3 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.3. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.3 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.02.2016.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-20 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a plot No.104-EP-103-305 measuring 305 sq. yards for an amount of Rs.65,63,905/- including EDC, IDW, PLC charges etc. The amount was to be paid in installments in consonance with the completion of the project.  The plot was sold by the Op No.2 with premium of Rs.11 lacs + paid up amount of Rs.2 lacs. The complainant paid Rs.13 lacs vide receipt Annexure C-6 issued by Ops No.1 and 2. Out of above amount of Rs.13 lacs, Rs.90,000/- was paid by Op No.2 to the Op No.3 vide receipt Annexure C-7 but no allotment letter was issued by the Op No.3. The Op No.2 also executed an affidavit (Annexured C-8) stating that the Op No.2 has applied for provisional registration/allotment of the plot/flat/villa in Mohali, Punjab with M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. and also confirmed that the complainant i.e. Tarlochan Singh Walia has been nominated. He also executed indemnity-cum-undertaking of the transferor/assignor/sellor/nominator (Annexure C-9) but till the filing of the complaint no allotment letter of the plot has been issued in favour of the complainant nor the Ops delivered the physical possession of the plot.
7. From the perusal of the case file and documents placed on file, the cause of action to file the present complaint has arisen on 27.06.2011 and on 26.12.2012 on which dates the Ops No.1 and 2 and Op No.3 issued the receipt of payment made by the complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 08.01.2016 which is time barred. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act is as under:-

“24-A. Limitation period-(1) 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.

(20    Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), 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.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Kandimalla Rahavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) has held that Limitation-Time Barred-Insurance Claim-Fire in tobacco godown took place on 22/23 March, 1988-Intimation to Bank in whose favour stock hypothecated, given on 23 March itself-Insurance Company informed in November, 1992-Period of limitation expired-Section 24A-Consumer Protection Act bars Consumer Fora from admitting complaint after two years from date of cause of action-Complaint before Consumer For a filed in October 1997, dismissed as time-barred-Civil appeal filed-Contention, denial of insurance company in honouring claim received in Marc-Limitation period will commence from the date-Contention not acceptable-Cause of action not continuous till denial of claim-Filing of claim by Bank in 1988 in no way helped complainant-Insurance Company’s reply to legal notice in March, 1996, declining to issue claim forms, not resulted in extending limitation period. Complaint filed in 1997, without application of condonation of delay manifestly barred by limitation-Dismissal of complaint justified-No interference requires in appeal.

8. In view of the above discussion and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the case law Kandimalla Rahavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) we are of the considered view that the complaint is time barred and it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we dismiss the complaint and the parties shall bear their own costs.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

Announced

11.05.2016        S.P.ATTRI         ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER          MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

                             

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT