Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/229/2024

PUNAM AGRAWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. GAURAV SHARMA, C.E.O M/S KRISHNA KANHA SHELTERS PVT. LTD., A UNIT OF PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS - Opp.Party(s)

Appellant (In person)

06 Dec 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	229 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	19.06.2024
Date of Decision	:	06.12.2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Punam Agrawal W/o Sh. Prem Shanker Agrawal, Age 67 years, Senior Citizen resident of House No.553, Vigyan Vihar, Sector 49A, U.T., Chandigarh – 160047

 ….Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]       Mr. Gaurav Sharma, C.E.O., M/s Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (A Unit of Pushpanjali Constructions PVt. Ltd.), E-48, Sector 63, NOIDA (U.P.).

2]      Mr. Durgesh Pathak, Sales Manager, M/s Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (A Unit of Pushpanjali Constructions Pvt. Ltd.), Pushpanjali Baikunth, Tehra Road, Vrindavan, Mathura (U.P.).

 ...Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    JUSICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-    

Ms. Garima Pandey, Advocate for the appellant along-with Sh. Prem Shankar Agrawal, authorized representative of the appellant.

Sh. Umang Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA,  MEMBER

                    The instant appeal has been filed by the complainant – Punam Agrawal (appellant herein) against order dated 26.04.2024 vide which her consumer complaint No.301 of 2022 has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission) being time barred.

2]           The facts, in brief, were that the complainant booked Vrinda Cottage No.26 (70 sq. yd) with M/s Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. on 4.6.2011 for Rs.12,75,000/-. The opposite parties failed to disclose that the cottage was being constructed on unauthorized land. The sale agreement, signed on 20.08.2011, stated possession would be given by 20.01.2012. If delayed, the seller was to pay Rs.5/- per sq. ft. for each month of delay. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession by the agreed date despite repeated reminders (Annexures C-7 to C-9). Additionally, the construction did not match the approved layout plan, which as per the complainant, was an unfair trade practice.

3]                On the other hand, the contest by the opposite parties was that the complaint was barred by limitation under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and should be dismissed on that basis. It was stated that the complainant booked a 1BHK cottage in 2011, which was delivered on 7.4.2012, as stated in the possession letter. However, the complainant has sought redressal after 10 years. It has further been stated that the complainant had not paid the maintenance fee since 2012, which has resulted in to an outstanding liability of Rs.2,13,232/-.

4]                 The order of the District Commission has been assailed by the complainant on the ground that the District Commission did not provide sufficient opportunity to the appellant to explain the reasons for filing the consumer complaint. It has further been stated that no such document is on record, which proves that the complainant took possession on 04.07.2012. It has further been stated that the complainant is continuously writing the opposite parties to finish the cottage vide letters for the period from 20.10.2013 to 01.05.2017, Annexures C-14-A to 14-G respectively. It has further been stated that the complainant sent Letter-cum-notice dated 03.12.2019, Annexure C-15 but the grievance was not redressed resulting into filing of consumer complaint No.867 of 2021 which was withdrawn on 15.12.2021 with liberty to file a fresh complaint with better particulars. Thus, consumer complaint No.301 of 2022 was filed. The complainant has prayed that the appeal be accepted, the impugned order be set aside by allowing her consumer complaint.

5]                On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant being time barred.

6]                After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and going through the material available on record and the impugned order, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

7]                Upon careful review of Annexure C-6, it is noted that the complainant booked a cottage on 20^th August 2011 for a total amount of Rs.12,75,000/-, with an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- being paid as the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). Further examination of Annexure C-10 reveals that the respondents offered possession of the cottage to the complainant on 7^th April 2012. The complainant subsequently took vacant physical possession of the property, which was complete in all respects, on 4^th July 2012. Importantly, it is stated that the complainant was fully satisfied with the quality of the property at the time of possession. Given these facts, it is crucial to note that the complainant has only approached this Commission for redressal of her grievance after a period of 10 years. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a complaint must be filed within a specific time frame from the date of the cause of action. In this case, since the complainant took possession of the property on 4^th July 2012 and had ample time to raise any concerns or grievances, her decision to file a complaint after a decade is clearly beyond the limitation period prescribed by the law. As such, we are of the firm view that the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Commission was barred by limitation. The filing of a subsequent complaint, after the withdrawal of a previous one with liberty to file a fresh consumer complaint, does not alter or impact the issue of limitation in any significant way. It is important to understand that the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act is determined by the date of the cause of action and not by the procedural history of the complaint. Even if the complainant had previously withdrawn a complaint with liberty to file a new one, such withdrawal does not reset or extend the limitation period. The limitation for filing a consumer complaint is a statutory requirement and it operates independently of the actions taken in relation to prior filings. Specifically, the Consumer Protection Act prescribes a time-bound period within which a complaint must be lodged starting from the date the cause of action arises, such as, the date of delivery of goods or services, or the date the deficiency was discovered. The withdrawal of an earlier complaint with the option to refile does not create a fresh cause of action nor does it provide an extension of the limitation period. Therefore, if the complainant has failed to file the complaint within the prescribed period after the original cause of action, the filing of a subsequent complaint remains subject to the same limitation period, regardless of the prior complaint's withdrawal. This ensures that legal disputes are resolved in a timely manner, and prevents the indefinite prolongation of cases that could otherwise have been addressed within a reasonable timeframe. The law aims to ensure timely resolution of disputes and the excessive delay in filing the complaint severely undermines the principles of justice under the Consumer Protection Act. It may be stated here that in "Ketan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Dattaraya Namjoshi"; III (2012) CPJ 60 (NC), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has held that a person who seeks exercise of judicial discretion of Court or Tribunal in his favour in the matter of condonation of delay, must explain to the satisfaction of Court/Tribunal/ Forum that he had "sufficient cause" which prevented him from filing the proceedings within prescribed period of limitation. He must explain each day's delay and show that delay was not intentional or willful which will entitle him to seek judicial discretion in his favour. The expression "sufficient cause" has been held to mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking it. Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in "Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme and others Vs. S.S. Ramachandran"; 2011 (2) CPR 33 (NC), has held that, "each day’s delay beyond prescribed period of limitation has to be explained satisfactorily by concerned applicant and in the absence of any dates, we are not at all convinced about the explanation put forth by the petitioner in support of the condonation application". In view of settled law and observations made above, we do not find any infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission, which is legal, just and fair. However, the judgment relied upon by the appellant in case ‘M/s. ASHOKA INVSTMENT CO. VERSUS M/s. UNITED TOWERS INDEIA (PVT.) LTD.’ CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).4913 of 2015 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 11.10.2022 is distinguishable on facts and as such, no benefit can be derived by the appellant out of the said judgment.

8]              For the reasons recorded above, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

9]              Pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed having rendered infructuous.

10]             Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

11]              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

06.12.2024.

(JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad