BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Gurbaksh Singh s/o Late S.Darshan Singh, R/o H.No.2771, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Greater Mohali, P.O. Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Pb.)

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

Mayur Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Registered Office 190, 191, 192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh (Through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mayur Real Estates Pvt. Ltd).   

                                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                              PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.K.B.M.Singh, Counsel for Complainant.

                        Sh.Amit Jaiswal, Counsel for OP

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the mother of the complainant namely Smt.Mohinder Kaur, now deceased, booked a Shop No.70 (Basement Floor) with OP at Surya Kiran Phase-2 Project at Mall Road, Ludhiana. She was liable to make the payment in installments i.e. 60% of the amount was agreed to be paid in three installments and 40% was to be paid at the time of possession.  It is the case of the complainant that three installments of Rs.20,000/- each and last installment of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 4.1.1993 vide receipt – Annexure – 1 to the OP.

                   It is further the case of the complainant that the total consideration of the shop in question has been paid by the mother of the complainant to the OP, so the OP was to deliver the possession which it had failed to deliver. The request was made to the OP to deliver the possession of the shop in question but of no consequences. It is further the case of the complainant that the OP neither returned the deposited amount with interest nor delivered the possession of the shop.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OP as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

2.                OP filed reply. The preliminary objections vis-vis limitation, maintainability and commercial purposes were raised. On merits, it is admitted that Mohinder Kaur had booked a shop in Surya Kiran Project Phase-2, Ludhiana. The payment of the amount of Rs.10,000/- made vide receipt dated 4.1.1993 – Annexure-1 is admitted subject to production of original receipt and the balance payment as alleged by the complainant is denied.

                   It is replied that the complainant is not the class-I legal heir of the deceased Smt.Mohinder Kaur. It is further replied that the replying OP did not keep the old records and normally the record which are more than 10 years old are weeded out. It is further replied that the building was ready and the possession was delivered to all the buyers within time.

                   It is further replied that the mother of the complainant made the payment of Rs.10,000/- and was unable to make the balance payment, so she never asked for the possession of the shop. Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.     

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.                The learned Counsel for the complainant raised the arguments that the amount of Rs.60,000/- has been paid to the OP by the mother of the complainant but the OP has failed to deliver the possession of the shop in question.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant has produced on record the receipt of Rs.10,000/- dated 4.1.1993 – Annexure-1 and besides this, he has not produced any documentary evidence on record to prove the payment of the balance amount, so the version of the complainant that the total consideration amount of the shop in question has been paid by his mother cannot be accepted.

7.                The OP has raised the preliminary objections that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. For the purpose of convenience, Section 24-A (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which deals with the Limitation Act is reproduced as under :-

“[24-A. Limitation period – (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or 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.”

8.                The complainant has averred that the total consideration of the shop had been paid to OP in installments and last installment of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 4.1.1993 vide receipt Annexure-1, referred to above. Thus it appears that the cause of action to the complainant lastly arose on 4.1.1993. Thus, the complaint is required to be filed within a period of two years i.e. on or before 3.1.1995. The present complaint has been filed on 18.8.2011. Therefore, it can legitimately be concluded without any hesitation that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. There is nothing on the record to prove that the cause of action in the case was recurring one or the cause of action in wholly or in part arose within two years from the filing of the present complaint.

9.                As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the present complaint is barred by limitation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it will be a vain attempt to go in further details of the matter on merits. Therefore, the complaint is ordered to be dismissed as it has not been filed within the period of limitation, with no order as to costs.

10.               The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned.