| Complaint Case No. CC/14/2014 |
| | | | 1. Augusta Vaz & others | | H. No. 57/D/1. Unit No. 1, Tolleband, Davorlim,Salcete,Goa | | South | | Goa | | 2. Tukaram Patil | | H. No. 57/D/1 Unit No. 11, Tolleband,Davorlim,Salcete,Goa | | South | | Goa | | 3. Ganpat Dhondu Palkar | | H. No. 57/D/1 Unit No. 14, Tolleband,Davorlim,Salcete,Goa | | South | | Goa | | 4. Bashasab Narangi | | H. No. 57/D/1 Unit No. 12, Tolleband,Davorlim,Salcete,Goa | | South | | Goa | | 5. Chandrakant Jamune | | H. No. 57/D/1 Unit No. 3, Tolleband,Davorlim,Salcete,Goa | | South | | Goa |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Govindraj Pai Kakode & others | | Prop:-M/s K.K. Constructions, Office at 47, Damodar Building, Near Police Station, Margao Goa -403 601 | | South | | Goa | | 2. The Secretary/Sarpanch village panchayat at Davorlim- Dicarpale | | Davorlim,Salcete Goa | | South | | Goa | | 3. The Town Planner,South Goa Town and Country Planning Dept | | 4th floor, SGPDA Market Complex, Margao Goa 403 601 | | South | | Goa | | 4. The Additional Director of Panchayat-I | | 227, 2nd floor, Late Mathany Saldhana Administrative Complex, Margao Goa 403 601 | | South | | Goa |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | We have already observed that only OP No. 1 was a service provider. He has already sold the tenements constructed by him to the Complainants way back in the year 2007. Considering, the allegations in the complaint and after hearing the Shri. Kle, the lr. advocate, we are of the view that the complainants are before a wrong Forum. Firstly, the cause of action in favour of the complainants arose on or about 10/12/07, when according to them, OP No. 1 started constructing illegal structures in the area reserved for parking. The complainants approached the Hon'ble High Court, and in our view rightly, in Writ Petition No. 530/2008 and in case the order of the High Court has still not been complied with, they shoild move further in that direction. If cause of action in favour of the complainants arose on or about 10/12/07, the complaint which has been filed on 30/05/2014 is hopelessly time barred, the same not having been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action, as provided by Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986. Secondly, OP No. 1 has resumed the work of reconstruction based on a revised plan approved by OP No. 3. OP No. 3 is neither a trader nor a service provider. The action of OP No. 3 in revising the plans cannot be challenged before this Forum. The complainants may be required to challenge the same before some other Forum. With the above observations, we proceed to dismiss the complaint at the stage of admission. | |
