Haryana

StateCommission

A/750/2019

MITTARPAL SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S COUNTRY CLUB - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                                First Appeal No.750 of 2019

                                                Date of Institution: 27.08.2019

Date of final hearing: 15.02.2023

                                                       Date of pronouncement: 27.03.2023

Mittarpal Sharma S/o Shri Kunwar Pal Sharma, H.No. 339, MCF, Street 11, 60 Feet Road End, Parvatiya Colony, Near Mahadev Temple, NIT, Faridabad.

…..Appellant

Versus

M/s Country Club, 0129-4172413-14, Charmwood Village, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad-121009.

Other addresses:

M/s Country Club, Opp. HDFC Bank, N-18, Sector-18, Noida-201301

M/s Country Club, 25, Community Centre, East of Kailash, Near Sapna Cinema, New Delhi-110065.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Mittarpal Sharmaappellant in person.

                   Mr. Pardeep Sharma, counsel for respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.750 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad(In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.408of 2018, which was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that on 30.03.2008 complainant booked plot of 2000 sq. ft. with opposite party’s project at Kolad, Maharashtra for a total consideration price of Rs.1,75,000/- and paid Rs.60,000/- & Rs.10,000/- through credit card and OP issued receipt No. 2330 and 3231 both dated 31.03.2008 at OP’s Faridabad office. Vide letter dated 14.04.2008 OP accepted the membership of complainant in the project and confirmed the allotment of 2000 sq. ft. plot at Kolad, Maharashtra. Complainant paid Rs.1,75,000/- to OP till 23.07.2008 and requested to get the sale deed of the said plot executed in his favour but OP kept on putting off his request for one pretext to other. On 01.06.2009 complainant visited OP’s office at Mumbai and latter asked him to wait for some more time as sanction from the concerned Govt. department was yet to be obtained. Complainant requested OP telephonically and also visiting personally to refund the deposited amount but OP refused to do so. On 12.06.2018 complainant again sent an email to OP with similar request but till date OP neither replied thereto nor refunded his amount. Thus, there being deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, hence this complaint.

3.      In its written version, OPraised preliminary objection regarding maintainability and limitation. Elaborating this aspect it was alleged that there is more than 8 years delay and as such complaint ought to be dismissed at the threshold because cause of action arose in 2008 when complainant suffered from an alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Between the period from 24.07.2008 and date of filing of case there is 3698 day’s (10 years, 1 month and 15 days) and thus, complaint is barred by an unexplained delay. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPand prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Faridabad has dismissed the complaint vide order dated23.07.2019, which is as under:

“As per dictum of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the District Forum is empowered to admit a complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action arisen.

Resultantly, the application filed by the opposite party is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Mittarpal Sharma, appellant in person and Mr. Pardeep Sharma, counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      It is admitted thaton 30.03.2008 complainant booked plot with respondent and on the next day i.e. 31.03.2008 he made payment of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter complainant made full and final payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 23.07.2008. It is also admitted that complainant filed the complaint on 07.09.2018 before the District Commission i.e. after a period of more than 10 years and complainant did not submit any application either seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Thus, learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 23.07.2019 and thus, the appeal stands dismissed.

8.Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

9.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

10.      File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 27^thMarch, 2023

 

 

 

                        (Suresh ChanderKaushik)                       (S. P. Sood)                                                  Member                                                            Judicial Member                

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)