Hon’ble Mrs. Dipa Sen (Maity), Presiding Member
Both parties are present through their Ld. Advocates. Today is fixed for hearing of condonation of delay petition. The record is taken up for consideration of the same filed by the complainant. Whereby the complainant has made a prayer for condonation of delay of 414 days.
The complainant herein lodged a complaint u/s 17 of the C.P Act, 2019 in the matter of breach of Agreement of Sale of a flat dated 30th December, 2011 between the parties and thereby alleging deficiencies by the Developers and prays for compensation of Rs. 8,24,016/- along with interest to the tune of 8% per annum.
It appears from the record that both parties have entered into an agreement on 30.12.2011 regarding purchasing of a flat being Unit No. 1403 measuring 1359 sq. ft. super built up area on the 16th floor of the Tower name ‘Kanchen Junga’ to the complex known as Godrej Prakriti situated at 187 F/1, B.T Road, Kolkata- 700015.
Complainant has mentioned in the condonation of delay petition that unfortunately the mother of this Complainant No. 1 expired on 9th March, 2017 and they could not file the case within due period of time. Complainant ultimately appeared before this Commission on 24th December, 2019.
The OP has already filed one W.O against the condonation of delay petition wherein they have stated that the OP has already received C.C from concern Municipality of Panihati on 19.08.2015. They have already handed over the possession of the said flat on 25.08.2015 and already registered the Deed of Agreement for sale which has been executed in between the parties on 30.12.2011. The Ld. Advocate of the OP has categorically stated that before taking possession the complainant has signed one declaration stating that the complainant being fully satisfied with the unit have taken quiet, vacant, peaceful possession of the unit and they do not have any claim against the Developer in respect of the said flat/unit.
Seen the application and objection thereto. One of the main objectives behind enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to render justice to the consumer to decide the complaint, as far as possible within the statutory period of limitation u/s 69. It appears that the appellants had sufficient opportunity to file the case within due period of time. It is well settled that the complainant seeking condonation of delay is required to explain each and every days delay in a convincing manner. But in the present case the complainant has filed belated petition only to gain unjustified enrichment even after signing a declaration as full satisfied.
Considering the submission made by both the Ld. Advocates of the parties and for the reason aforesaid the application for condonation of delay is rejected on contest.
In view of the above, the Consumer Complaint case being No. CC/1040/2019 is disposed of as rejected as time barred.
