Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1230/2017

JAI KARAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAPSKO BUILDERS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KUMAR

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :15.9.2017

 

Complaint Case No.1230/17

 

Sh. Jai Karan Singh

S/o Sh. Chhattar Singh

R/o V.P.O. Lath

Tehsil – Gohana

District – Sonepat

Haryana

……Complainants

 

Versus

 

Mapsko Builders Pvt. Ltd.

52, North Avenue Road,

Punjabi Bagh West

New Delhi-110026

 

……..Opposite Party

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.           This is a complaint under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act wherein following prayers are made:-

1. Deliver the possession of the plot No. MB-137 in “Mapsko Garden Estate” Sector 26, 26 A and 27 Sonepat, (Haryana) on such terms/payment of balance amount as this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the interest justice.
2. Pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lakhs) against the mental agony and harassment caused by the OP to complainant.
3. Pay Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) against the cost of litigation.

 

2. Brief facts are as under:-

On 1.5.09 complainant had booked a plot measuring 250 sq./yds in the proposed project of OPs named as “Mapsko Garden Estate” in Sonepat, (Haryana) for Plot No. MB-137 by paying booking amount of Rs.6,31,875/-.  A receipt dated 30.7.09 was also issued in favour of complainant. It is stated that on  31.7.09 a plot buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties wherein terms and conditions were agreed. It is alleged that in Nov., 2009, OP had sent a demand for Rs.,8,19,375/- and amount demanded was duly paid to the OP. On 24.11.09 a housing loan of Rs.10,50,000/-was approved in favour of the complainant. Another sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid by the complainant on  25.11.09 to OP and thereafter a sum of Rs.4,69,375/- was paid by the banker to the OP. It is alleged that on 13.4.13 additional payment of Rs.5,77,705/- was made on account of interest on delayed payment and in the same letter enhanced EDC/IDC of Rs.77,500/- was raised upon complainant. The complainant vide letter dated 21.4.13 opposed the aforesaid payments by alleging that the same were illegal. Thereupon another letter dated 11.5.13 was sent by OP as a reminder to the complainant demanding aforesaid amount. Thereafter there was a correspondence between the parties wherein complainant had alleged that the payment raised were beyond the agreement and whereas OP was sending the reminder for the same. Due to non payment of demand, OP had cancelled the booking vide letter 8.1.14. It is alleged that on 11.1.14 complainant had sent e-mail offering for the balance amount without any interest. However OP did not agree. Thereafter there are communications between the parties. However, on 7.1.16 OP had informed the complainant that the booking had already been cancelled and the same already intimated to him earlier. Thereupon complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum (West), Janak Puri, New Delhi. However, the said complaint was returned to the complaint on the ground that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said complaint and accordingly the same was returned to the complainant on 6.7.17. Thereupon the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Commission on 24.7.17.

3.           While hearing on the admission of the complaint it is noticed that the OP had already cancelled the booking of plot of complainant vide letter dated 8.1.14.  By the aforesaid letter it has been categorically informed to the complainant that since he had failed to meet the outstanding payment of Rs.11,07,500/- and no response had been received from his side and as per terms and conditions of the agreement, booking of aforesaid plot is cancelled with immediate effect. The complainant was also informed that he is left with no right or lien on the said plot and the OP is free to deal with the same in any manner. The complainant was also asked to collect his dues.
4.           Reading the aforesaid letter, it is clear that the cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant on 8.1.14 whereas the complaint was filed before the District Forum in March, 2016 and before this Commission on 24.7.17. Even if the date of filing of the complaint before the Ld. District Forum is taken and benefit of exclusion of time in approaching forum having no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter is given, even then the complaint is time barring. The complainant ought to have filed complaint within two years from 8.1.14 as prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which has not been done by complainant.  No application for condonation of delay is filed along with the complaint.  Present is not a case of ‘cause of action’ to be “continuing cause of action”. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the limitation will start from 7.1.16 when ^2nd letter from OP was received as the cause of action has again arisen on the said date.
5. We have perused the aforesaid letter.  By the said letter OP has only reiterated its previous stand that his booking had been cancelled as intimated to him earlier. In these circumstances the contention that cause of action has again arisen in favour of the complainant on 7.1.16 is rejected.

 

6.           In view of above discussions the complaint is time barring. No application for condonation of delay is filed along with the complaint. Accordingly the same stands dismissed on the ground of limitation.
7.           A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge

                    File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President