For Complainant                       :    Adv. Shri. Bhojwani            

***********************************************************************

 

 

[1]                    Initially the present complaint was filed before the Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bearing Complaint No. : PDF/170/2005. After the order passed by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, this matter was transferred from Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to Additional Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bearing Complaint No. : APDF/124/08.

 

 

 

 

[2]                    This is the case wherein Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opponent Builder for rendering deficient service. The facts in brief which give rise to the present complaint are as follows :-

 

[3]                    The Complainant Mr. Kartar Sainani had purchased a flat in a scheme developed by Opponent Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. (who hereinafter shall be referred as Builder) As per the registered agreement entered into between the Complainant and the Opponent dtd.29/12/1992, the Complainant purchased one flat in a building “D”. for consideration of Rs.8,05,000/- . In addition to this amount the Complainant also paid the builder Rs.90,750/- towards one time maintenance . The said maintenance amount was paid by the Complainant in the year 1988. It is the grievance of the Complainant that despite paying “one time” maintenance charges at the time of agreement, the builder still took regular maintenance charges also from the Complainant for the period December 1998 to Nov 2000. It is the grievance of the Complainant that the builder has not furnished the account for the same; also the builder did not provide certain promised common amenities. According to the Complainant accepting regular maintenance inspite of receiving one time maintenance and not providing common amenities, amount to deficiency in service and hence he has claimed compensation of Rs.2,87,772/- from the builder. The Complainant has requested the Forum to grant this amount alongwith the interest. In support of his complaint, the Complainant has filed an affidavit as well as deed of confirmation and the receipts of the amount paid from time to time to the builder.

 

[4]                    On receipt of the notice, the Builder filed his written version through Advocate. In his written version the builder has denied all the allegations made by the Complainant and has raised his objections in respect of period of limitation. According to the builder, since the Complainant had taken the possession of the flat in the year 1998, the present complaint filed in the year 2005 is barred by limitation. The builder has denied non provision of common amenities to the Complainant. According to the builder, the Apartment of Association has been formed and the entire account of the maintenance charges has been handed over to the said Association. According to the builder, the Complainant has not disclosed certain facts in respect of the disputes between the Association and certain flat purchasers and hence it is submitted by the Builder that Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The builder has specifically denied having accepted one time maintenance from the Complainant. The builder has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.    The builder has filed his affidavit as well as five documents vide exh.15 in support of his written version. 

 

[5]                    After filing of the written version by the builder, the Complainant filed his affidavit in evidence as well as certain documents vide exh.17, 18, 19 and 22. The Complainant also filed his written notes of arguments vide exh. 23. Thereafter Advocate Mr. Bhojwani on behalf of the Complainant and Advocate Mr. Mehata was heard on behalf of the Builder and the matter was posted for judgment.

 

[6]                    On perusal of the complaint application, it can be seen that the Complainant has made twofold allegations :- (1) Charging regular maintenance inspite of accepting one time maintenance. (2) Not providing certain common amenities. If we go through the written version of the builder it can be seen that the first and the foremost objection which he has raised is in respect of period of limitation. Since the point of limitation goes to the root of the matter, we would first discuss this issue.

 

[7]                    It is not disputed by the Complainant that the possession of the flat was taken by him in the year 1998. If we go through the para (10) of the complaint application, it can be seen that the Complainant has raised the grievance in respect of the maintenance charges taken by the builder for the period December 1998 to November 2000. Undisputedly, the Complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2005. As per the provisions of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, there is a legal mandate on the Complainant to file his complaint within a period of two years from the date of cause of action. The Complainant has come before the Forum with two grievances. (1) non provision of common amenities and (2) charging extra maintenance charges. As far as the common amenities are concerned the cause of action would start from the date of possession of the flat. As far as the maintenance charges are concerned the Complainant has made a specific mention in para 10 of his complaint that certain extra charges were recovered by the builder for period December 1998 to November 2000. So, as far as the grievance in respect of the maintenance charges are concerned, the period of limitation would start from November 2000. Undisputedly the Complainant has filed the present complaint on 10/6/2005. in view of the provisions of Section 24-A it can be very well seen that the Complainant has filed the present complaint much beyond the period of limitation. The Complainant has neither given any delay condonation application nor has he given any satisfactory reason why the complaint application is filed after the period of limitation. Though the Complainant has mentioned in his complaint application that there is a continuing cause of action, we do not agree with such a submission made by the Complainant. The provisions of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act are very clear and in our view the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence the same deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. Since we have arrived at a conclusion that the present complaint is barred by limitation, we have not gone into merits of the allegations made by the Complainant. In view of the abovementioned discussion and the conclusion, in our opinion, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed being barred by limitation. Hence we proceed to pass the following order :-

 

                                    (i)         The complaint stands dismissed.

 

 

                                    (iii)      Certified copies of this order be  

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PUNE.

 

Place   :  Pune  

Date   :  26/06/2012