SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

1. The instant consumer case has been instituted by the complainants against the opposite parties praying for certain reliefs as prayed for.
2. The record has been taken up for admission hearing.
3. We have heard the ld. advocate appearing for the complainant at length and in full.
4. We have meticulously perused the materials available on record.
5. It appears from the four corners of the record that one development agreement has been executed by and between late Prabir Kumar Pal and the developers/opposite parties and the same has also been registered on 04/10/2016 in the office of DSR- III, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.  
6. It is admitted that one power of attorney has been executed by the parties herein and the same has also been registered in the office of DSR on 21/11/2016. By virtue of the said power of attorney Late Prabir Kumar Pal has already entrusted all rights upon the op no - 2/developer to carry out all the construction work.
7. In pursuant to the development agreement, it is found that Mr. Prabir Kumar Pal since deceased shall be entitled to 50% of the newly constructed premises situated at 66A, Suren Sarkar Road, PS and PO – Beliaghata, Kolkata – 700010. It is also agreed condition that the proposed construction shall be finished within a period of 24 months either from the date of obtaining the sanction plan or from the date of receipt of vacant possession of the existing building whichever is later.
8. It is submitted that the sanctioned building plan vide no – 2018030016 dated 5^th June 2018 for construction of G+3 has been approved by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
9. It is fact that Prabir Kumar Pal died on 14^th November 2021 leaving behind the complainants herein who are called for only legal heirs of erstwhile deceased owner of the property. After death of Prabir kumar Pal, the complainants are now owners of the property.
10. In the petition of complaint, the complainants have clearly stated that the opposite party no – 2 had already sold the first floor and the second floor by way of sale deed dated 19/09/2019 and 22/06/2021 without intimating the complainants and without handing over the allocation of the complainants in pursuant to the development agreement dated 4^th October 2016. It is the settled principle of law that on which date the complainant receives the harm and injury for the act done by the opposite party, the cause of action starts forthwith from the said date. So there is no hesitation to hold that the cause of action has already been started on and from 04/10/2016. Knowing everything the complainant kept himself mum for the considerable period of time and at last he has come before this Commission on 19/04/2023 ie at a belated stage.       
11. In this respect we cite the provision of section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which clearly provides the limitation period. This section clearly provides that the District Commission, State Commission and 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. A petition of complaint may be entertained after the aforesaid period of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the DCDRC or SCDRC or NCDRC, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
12. It appears from the record that no separate petition for condonation of delay has been filed before this Commission. Though the ld advocate appearing for the complainant has submitted a citation in support of his case but in this respect we are of the view that the each and every case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and accordingly the cause of action will be deemed to have arisen on the very particular date when the complainant discovers the harm or injury caused due to act done by the opposite party/parties. 
13. Thus being the situation it should be very practical at the behest of the complainant to rush to the Commission forthwith for getting proper relief/reliefs otherwise the main object of the provision under section 69 of the Act 2019 will be frustrated. The cause of action cannot continue for a long period of time even for life time of the complainant.
14. In the instant case the complainant has tried to create a cause of action by sending a letter dated 09/11/2022. But it is the settled principle of law that mere sending the letter does not create/constitute the repeated or continued cause of action. But It is the settled principle of law that mere correspondence does not constitute the repeated/continuous cause of action.
15. In this regard we can safely rely upon the decision State of Tripura and others vs Arabinda Chakraborty and others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 460 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “in our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitations. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided..........”  
16. The Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Shah vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd reported in III (2006) CPJ 414 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC has been pleased to hold that no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.
17. In State Bank of India vs B.S. Agriculture Industries reported in II(2009) CPJ 29 SC, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the complainant is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay, the Consumer Forum will have no option but to dismiss the same.
18. On the other hand it is quite admitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been pleased to extent the limitation period till 29/05/2022 by virtue of Suo Moto Writ Petition being no – 3 of 2020. But it is very unfortunate that the complainants have failed to file the instant consumer case before this Commission within 29/05/2022 and accordingly the matter is hopelessly barred by limitation as per our view.
19. In view of aforesaid observations and views, we are constrained to dismiss the instant consumer case at the admission stage without any order as to costs.
20. The instant CC case stands dispose of.
21. Note accordingly.
22. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the complainant free of cost.