Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/456/2022

Ravi Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Barnala Builders and Property Consultants - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Jolly

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/456/2022
Date of Institution	:	22.4.2022
Date of Decision	:	3/4/2024

 

1. Ravi Kumar son of Sh Munshi Ram

 

2. Manju Rani wife of Sh Ravi Kumar

 

Both residents of House No. 464, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh

 

Complainants

VERSUS

 

1. M/s Barnala Builders and Property Consultants, SCO No.1, Opposite Yes Bank, Zirakpur-Patiala Road, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Partner/Authorized Signatory Mandan Jindal.

2. Satish Jindal and Madan Jindal, Partners/Authorized Signatories of M/s Barnala Builders and Property Consultants, SCO No.1, Opposite Yes Bank, Zirakpur-Patiala Road, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar (Mohali)

 

3. Resident Welfare Association, Maya Garden City, Nagla Road, Zirakpur- 140603 through its President.

 

......Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vivek Mohan Sharma, Advocate for complainants.
	:	Sh. Jatin Bansal alongwith Ms. Keerti Sandhu, Advocate for OPs No.1&2.
	:	Sh. Jaswant Singh Toor, Advocate for OP No.3.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant allured with the  advertisement and assurances given by the OPs about their project booked a apartment   in the project of the OPs.  Accordingly Agreement to Sell dated 28.5.2013 was executed between the parties and the complainant was allotted built up apartment No.802, Block I-3, Maya Garden City.  The OPs assured the complainant to handover possession of the  apartment in question within stipulated period as per clause 6 of the agreement to sell dated 28.5.2013. According to agreement the Ops No.1&2 were  to handover possession of the apartment on or before 30.5.2015 but the OPs actually handed over the possession in August 2016 as a result of which the complainant had to pay rent. The complainant requested the OPs to  make payment of delayed possession @Rs.5 per square feet as per clause 6 of the agreement to sell and it was assured by the OPs that the delayed possession charges would be adjusted at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of the complainant   but did not pay the same at the time of execution of sale deed.  Thereafter the OPs assured that the delayed possession charges shall be adjusted in future maintenance charges but to the surprise of the complainant the OP No.1 in November 2019 demanded maintenance charges to the tune of Rs.31,944/-. The complainant immediately  approached the OPs and they informed the complainant that the demand was issued in routine and the complainants are not required to pay the same. However, again in September 2020 the Ops issued demand of Rs.62,228/- towards the  maintenance charges. Ultimately the complainant sent a legal notice dated 15.1.2021 to the OPs demanding delayed possession charges but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2  in their joint reply stated that the Complainant took the possession of the unit in question on 28.08.2016, following which, there have been no dispute raised by the Complainant against the OP Nos. 1 and 2. The possession was taken by the Complainant without any protest and thus, the Complainant is barred by limitation from raising the alleged cause of action which arose in August, 2016, more than five years later in the present complaint. The OP No. 1 had raised the demand notice for the payment of maintenance charges against the Complainant  and the Complainant on seeing this as an opportunity of raising frivolous and illegal demands against the OP No. I suddenly raised disputes which had not been raised by the Complainant any time before. The same was done by the Complainant as an attempt to browbeat the OP No. 1 with his illegal demands and for wriggling out from his responsibility of paying the maintenance charges which were due from him. Denying any deficiency on their part all other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.3 in its reply stated that the complainant  is willfully defaulting to pay common area maintenance charges of the residents association Maya garden City, Nagla road, Zirakpur. It is alleged that the complainant rented out his property and his tenant enjoining the services O.P No.3 without paying the common area maintenance charges. It is stated that the Maya Graden city society has been taken over from Barnala builders by the residents welfare association i.e O.P no.3, with effect from 1003/1 January2021 through an agreement duly signed by both parties. As per the record residents welfare association i.e. O.P. no.3 is claiming the common area maintenance charges from 31/12/2020 to 31/12/2022, like other residents of the society. It is vehemently denied that there is any deficiency on the part of the answering OP. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that OPs No.1&2 have handed over the possession of the apartment in question after delay about 15 months, for which complainant had to suffer great financial loss, harassment and mental agony as he had to stay in rented accommodation and the OPs No.1&2 have not paid the delayed charges to the complainant.
8. On perusal of complaint, it is observed that the complainants took the possession of the apartment in question without any protest with regard to delay on 28.8.2016 and thereafter no dispute was raised by the complainant against the OPs No.1&2 specifically qua any delayed possession charges till demand of  maintenance charges raised by OP No.1 in November, 2019 and filed the complaint before this Commission  in the year 2022 i.e. after almost more than 5 years after taking possession of the apartment in question.  
2. Mere sending letters or exchange of correspondence between the parties, would not, in any way, extend the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.   Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as under:-

^{“69(1).Limitation period. –}

^{(1)     The District Commission, 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.”}

 

3.  In view of the above Section of the Consumer Protection Act, the present complaint is clearly barred by limitation, hence not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
4.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/ [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
3/4/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member