Complainants’ filed hazira through their ld. advocate. OPs are absent as usual.

          Today is fixed for passing of order.

In brief, case of the complainants’ is that based on the lowest bid quoted by OP no. 1 against the tender floated by their society, they awarded an order for installation and commissioning of a lift (elevator) at their housing complex at a consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/- on 17-07-2006. Complainant’s made an advance of Rs. 1,80,500/- on different dates to OP no. 1 as per his demand to execute the work.  Complainants’ also spent another sum of Rs. 79,997/- to procure machineries from OP no. 2 as per the recommendation of OP no. 1.However, OP no. 1, despite receipt of almost the entire contractual amount from the complainants’, have not installed the lift in gross violation of the express terms and conditions of the P.O. Repeated requests, legal notice served through the ld. advocates of complainants’ proved futile, hence the instant case.   OP no. 3 constructed the Housing Complex for the members of Co. Op. Society of the complainants. Complainants’ made OP no. 2 and 3 as Proforma Opposite Parties in the instant case.

In support of their claim, complainants’ filed photocopies of several documents viz Bank pass book, Tax Invoice and challan issued by OP no. 2, Letter of Intent dt. 17-07-2006 issued by complainants’ Co. Op. Society, Legal Notices issued by the Co. Op. Society of Complainants’. Pass book copy, Money Receipts issued by OP no. 1, Bill and Proforma Invoice issued by OP no. 1 etc.

Despite receipt of notice, OP no. 1 & 2 did not turn up to contest the case.  OP no. 3 though appeared initially and sought for time to file to file written version, he did not submit any written version.  Hence, the case was heard ex-parte against all the OPs.

Points for consideration

We have carefully gone through the materials on record including the petition of complaint, heard the submission of ld. lawyer appeared on behalf of the complainant.  We frame the following points to come to a decision about the bone of contention.

1. Whether the case is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

Decisions with reasons

Point no. 1:

Admittedly, complainants’ through their Co. Op. Society, placed an order on OP no. 1 for installation and commissioning of a lift on 17-07-2006 and OP no. 1 was supposed to complete the job within 8 weeks.  It, therefore, goes to show that in terms of the aforesaid Letter of Intent issued by the Co. Op. Society of the Complainants’, cause of action in the instant case arose on 10-09-2006when the period of commissioning of lift expired while complainant filed the instant case on 14-01-2013 i.e. after nearly 6 years 4 months though under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is obligatory on the part of aggrieved consumer to seek Redressal of his grievance through Forum within 2 years from the date of cause of action.  Although complainants’ tried to assert that cause of action of the instant case arose on 14-01-2011 when complainants’ served their second legal notice on OP no. 1 and again on 08-02-2011 when OP no. 1 directly in person refused to complete the entire project, we feel is based on totally misconceived notion since serving a legal notice upon Opposite Party or alleged verbal refusal on the part of OP to carry out a job after expiry of the period of limitation from the alleged date (10-09-2006) of cause of action, the said limitation for such cause of action cannot be continued. Besides, complainants’ have also not moved any petition for condonation of delay nor assigned any proper reason behind such belated filing of the instant case. It is the settled position of law that a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right.

In the light of our foregoing discussion we hold that the instant case, being hit by limitation, is not maintainable.

This point is, thus, decided against the complainant.

Point no. 2:

Insofar as the instant case is not maintainable as discussed hereinabove, we are not inclined to discuss this point.

This point is, thus, disposed of accordingly.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

          that the instant C. Case no. 07/2013 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against OP nos. 1 to 3 being not maintainable.

                             Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

                             S. S. Ali                                                A.K. Bhattacharyya

                             Member(L)                                           President