1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Ops floated a housing project at Jagannath Prasad, Bhubaneswar and invited applications from the intending employees of HAL vide Circular Dt.05.07.2008 and Dt.14.08.2008 and the complainant being an employee had applied for a plot of land and has paid Rs.46, 000/- vide Cheque No.0172778 dt.20.08.2008 and Rs.1, 83,000/- vide Cheque No.0185403 dt.07.09.2009 of SBI, Sunabeda to the Opp. Parties.  It is submitted that the Ops failed to provide the plot as promised and have changed the location of the proposed housing project to different places from their original plan and due to some disputes with the Broker; the Ops could not provide the plot to the complainant as promised.  It is also submitted that the complainant has applied for refund of the deposited amount on 22.09.2012 and personally requested the Ops several times and finally sent Registered Notice on 16.04.2015 to which the Ops are yet to respond.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.2, 29,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint admitting the fact that the complainant had applied for the plot by way of depositing the initial money on 20.08.2008 and 07.09.2009.  The Ops contended that the complainant has admitted in his complaint petition that 6 years have been completed but the Ops have not provided the plot for registration and also the complainant admitted that he applied for refund on 22.09.2012 and this the case is not filed within the period of 2 years and is hit under limitation u/s.24A (1) of C. P. Act.  With above contentions the Ops have prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case floating of Circular for housing scheme, application of the complainant for a plot of land under the scheme and payment of Rs.2, 29,000/- as initial money paid by the complainant for said purpose are all admitted facts.  The case of the complainant is that the Ops have failed to provide plot and changed the location of the project several times arbitrarily to different places for which he sought refund of his deposit on 22.09.2012 and personally requested the Ops and also sent registered notice on 16.4.2015 but the Ops are yet to refund his money.

5.                     The Ops in their counter stated that the complainant has applied for refund of his deposit on 22.9.2012 and hence cause of action arose on 22.9.2012 and expires after 2 years from that date.  As this case is filed in the year, 2015, the same is time barred case.  The Ops have also prayed to decide the case on the point of limitation.

6.                     In order to decide on this point, it is seen that the complainant has paid advance in the year, 2009 and asked for refund on 22.9.2012.  The copy of letter dt.22.9.12 of the complainant requesting refund of initial money to the Ops is available on record.  This case has been filed by the complainant on 13/7/2015 and also had a correspondence with the Ops on 16.4.15.  The Ops stated that the cause of action starts from the date of refund request i.e. 22.09.2012 but not from the date of last correspondence on 16.4.2015.  In order to decide this issue, reliance can be placed to the decision of our own State Commission reported in 2011(2) CPR 38 wherein it has been held that “Law is well settled that making of correspondence does not enlarge the period of limitation”.  In our opinion, the cause of action at best starts from the date of request for refund and the complainant could have filed his case within 2 years from 22.9.2012 but writing of letter on 16.4.15 could not extend the period of limitation.  When the case is hit under limitation, it is liable to be dismissed.

7.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)