Dtd.05.10.2024                                            A/119/2022

O R D E R

          BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by Complainants.1 & 2/Appellants aggrieved by the order dtd.16.12.2021 passed in CC/185/2020 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Commission, Mangaluru. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsels. Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be:

Whether the impugned order dtd.16.12.2021 passed in CC/185/2020 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

3. Learned counsel for Appellant submits that District Commission failed to appreciate the materials on record properly and submits not framed proper points that arise for consideration. It is  further contended  that although Appellants/Complainants have pointed out innumerable defects in the matter of construction in providing basic amenities and facilities were not been considered and the impugned order is contrary to the facts and law is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for Appellants would submits District Commission dismissed the complaint only on the point of limitation by invoking Sec.24A of CPA 1986 which is similar to Sec.69 of CPA 2019 and submits that matter to be remanded back to the District Commission for reconsideration of the consumer dispute raised by the Complainants on merits.
4. On the contrary learned counsel for Respondent/OP submits, complaint is raised alleging rendering deficiency in service on the part of OP on 10.11.2020 with a request to give direction against OP to rectify the defects as stated in para 16 of their complaint sl.no.1 to 30 which could not be considered in a complaint raised on 10.11.2020, when sale deed was executed in favour of Complainant on 24.08.2015.
5. Let us examine the impugned order, wherein could see as per annexure.1/agreement for construction-cum-sale is entered into between Complainant.2 and OP on 28.09.2012 in respect of B schedule apartment. Clause.5 at page 4 of the said document which provides for “That the Vendor shall complete the construction of the schedule B apartment on or before 30.03.2013 and deliver the same to the purchaser in a condition fit for occupation, subject to the purchaser making all the payments and all other expenses as mentioned in this agreement promptly and regularly.” Further as per annexure.3/sale deed at page 2 at para 2 which provides “Whereas the VENDOR has promoted and developed an Apartment building called the ‘CRYSTAL CENTRE’ (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BUILDINGS) in the ‘A’ Schedule property upon obtaining licence from the Neermarga Grama Panchyath in Ref. No.32/2007-08 dated 23.01.2008 and the process of development work of the Building has been completed in all respects and the VENDOR has executed a Deed of Declaration dated 22.03.2012, registered as Document NO.11804/2011-12, in Book No.1, in the office of the Sub-Registrar Bangalore Taluk, submitting the ‘A’ schedule property and BUILDING to the provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972, and subsequently the said Deed of Declaration has been rectified as per the Deed of Rectification dated 03.01.2013, registered as Document No.9440/2012-13, in Book No.1, in the office of the Sub-Registrar of I Mangalore Taluk.” It is also found by the end of para 9 of the impugned order “Thus at the time of execution of sale deed, parties to the sale deed have admitted the process of development works of the building has been completed in all respects and in pursuance of sale deed OP has delivered the possession of the schedule apartment to the Complainants.1 & 2 on the day of execution of sale deed.” In such circumstances, Complainants.1 & 2 have raised consumer complaint to give direction against OP to rectify beyond the period of two years that too when the apartment Owners Association is formed by owners of the apartment in the said building and it is said in the ground floor of the said apartment commercial spaces being let out. It is therefore, complaint raised on 10.11.2020 has to be held barred was rightly considered by appreciating the materials placed on record by the parties to the complaint by invoking the provisions of Sec.69 of CPA 2019 which in our view does not call for any interference of the Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo. Hence proceed to dismiss the appeal with no order as to cost.
6. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties for their information.

   Lady Member                                Judicial Member    

*NS*     NS