District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 553/2022.
Date of Institution:11.10.2022.
Date of Order:03.08.2023.
Durga Prashad Sharma, aged about 54 years, S/o Ram Shankar Sharma R/o House No. 513, Jawahar Colony, Sector-22, Faridabad, Haryana, Aadhaar No. 5659 2167 7291, Mobile No. 9958504239.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Country Club India Limited, Regd. Office: Charmwood Village, Surajkund road, Faridabad.
2. Kamaljeet Singh, CEO of M/s. Country club India Limited Office: G-12A, Mezzanine Floor, Hauj Kas, New Delhi.
3. Devid Jacob, Deputy Manager of M/s. Country Club India Limited, Office: G-12A, Mezzanine Floor, Hauj Kas, New Delhi (Mob. No. 9873300978, Phone No. 011-64534472).
4. Pawan Singh, Marketing Executive of M/s. Country club India Limited (Mobile. No. 9810211722).
5. Billing Department, M/s. Country Club India Limited Office: Ground floor, Building Department Hyderabad.
6. M/s. Amrutha Estate, Office: 723/A, Prathmesh Complex, Vira Deshai Road Extension, Andheri Paschim Mumbai.
7. Bharat Reddy, Legal Manager, M/s. Country Club India Limited, Regd. Office: Charmwood Village, Surajkund road, Faridabad.
8. Mr. Mittar Pal Sharma S/o shri Kunwar Pal Sharma R/o House No.
339, Gali No. 11, 60 ft. road, Parvatiya Colony, Near Mahadev Mandir, NIT,
Faridabad.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Banish Thakur, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Garima Tomar, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 7.
Sh. Mittar Pal, counsel for opposite party No.8.
ORDER:
Today the case was fixed for consideration on application under section 69 of the consumer Protection Act.
Complainant has filed an application stating that on 05.05.2008 the first payment was done and lastly on 25.02.2009 the last payment was done to the opposite party. It was on record that thereafter the complainant never approached the opposite parties for the execution of the agreement till date or in this regard. After 25.02.2009 the complainant straight away got issued a legal notice on 13.09.2022 ; as per the settled law the issuance of the legal notice never extents the limitation period already expired. Further, the complainant failed to show any cause of action occurred against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant in between the 2009 to 2019. Even if the complainant had any case
the limitation already expired. The present complaint was not supported with any application seeking condonation of this delay; meaning thereby the said factum had been discarded by the complainant himself. It was alleged that in the year 2019 suddenly complainant visited the office of the complainant whereas he never approached the complainant in the last 10 years suddenly wanted the agreement to be executed however no proof of the same had been annexed by the complainant. Rather no office address had been mentioned; no reference to the competent officer/representative referred who had a conversation with the complainant. The pleadings itself depicts that the complaint is just an eye wash for personating the complaint is well within the period of limitation. It has been prayed that the reject the complaint as it is barred by Section 69 of CPA, 2019 .
On the other hand, reply to the application has been filed by the complainant stating that the complaint is under limitation as the opposite parties had provided the membership login ID and password to the complainant at the time of membership and the opposite parties are updating annual charges and AMC service charges in the membership account of the complainant w.e.f. 31.07.2008 to 05.07.2022, which established that the complainant is the customer of the opposite parties. It is admitted to the extent that on 05.04.2008 the first payment was done and lastly on 25.02.2009 the last payment was done. It is submitted that when the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties and requested to update the record online then the opposite parties denied for the same and argued with the complainant and also refused to make updation in the online account of the complainant. It has been prayed that the application of the opposite parties may kindly be dismissed with cost.
2. Heard.
3. In para No.1 2 of the complainant it has been stated that the cause of action to file the resent complaint firstly accrued on 05.04.2008 when the complainant booked the plot with the opposite parties and cause of action further accrued on 13.09.2022 when the complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties.
3. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite party has
placed on record the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in case titled Mittarpal Sharma Versus M/s. Country Club in First Appeal No. 750 of 2019 decided on 15.02.2023
Ratio of the authority is applicable to the facts of the present case.
4. Keeping in view the facts and contents of the application, the Commission is of the opinion that after 25.2.2009 the complainant straight away got issued a legal notice on 13.09.2022 as per the settled law the issuance of the legal notice never extents the limitation period already expired. Further, the complainant failed to show any cause of action occurred against the opposite parties and in favour of the complainant in between 2009 to 2019.Hence, the application filed by the opposite party u/s 69 of Consumer Protection act,2019 on behalf of the opposite party as barred by limitation period is allowed and the main complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 03.08.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
