Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/68/2024

RAMESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DD BUILDERS - Opp.Party(s)

ER. SANDEEP SURI

30 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/68/2024
Date of Institution	:	29.1.2024
Date of Decision	:	30/9/2024

 

1. Ramesh Kumar R/o A-501, ALTURA Apartments, Nagla Road, Chandigarh Ambala Highway, Zirakpur.

2. Sito Devi R/o A-501, ALTURA Apartments, Nagla Road, Chandigarh Ambala Highway, Zirakpur.

Complainants

Versus

 

1 M/s DD Builders with head office at No. 1416, Sector 40B, Chandigarh thorugh its partner.

2 M/s DD Builders with registered office at Nagla Road, Village Singhpura, MC Zirakpur, Sub-Tehsil Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its Partner

3. Mr. Taril Singla S/o Sh Narinder Paul Singla, House No. 1148, Sector 34C, Chandigarh

4. Mr. Amar Prabhu Goyal S/o Sh Vijay Kumar Goyal, House No. 220, Sector 32A, Chandigarh

5. Mr. Narinder Paul Singla S/o Sh Jagan Nath Singla, House No. 1148, Sector 34C, Chandigarh

Opposite Parties

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

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Kartik, Advocate for complainants.
	:	Sh. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate for OPs.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

          Briefly stated  the complainant purchased a flat in the project of the OPs by paying Rs.40,00,000/-  and the allotment cum agreement of sale was executed between the parties on 25.7.2019.  It is alleged that the actual possession date was 31.12.2019 but the same was given on 3.11.2020  but without occupation certificate.  The sale deed was executed on 21.3.2023. The complainant file a Complaint before RERA against the OP  for delay in possession U/s. 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 for violation of Section Section 18(1) of the Act, for payment of interest for every month of delay in handing over possession of the ready to move in apartment and the RERA directed the OPs to pay 9.3% Interest per annum from 1.1.2020 till 25.07.2020, on Rs.20,04,347/- to the complainant  as per award of the RERA annexed as Exhibit C-9 It is alleged that the OPs have handed over  possession of the flat without completion  and amenities as the Swimming pool, community hall/ club house, park, Basketball Court, Tennis/Badminton Court, Yoga Room, Roof-Top Swimming Pool, Intercom Facility, Rooftop Patio, Skating Ring which were promised as per brochure were not available. It is also alleged that the complainant and his family was denied club house though the complainant had paid membership fee  in August 2020 to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. 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 in their written statement while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that  at the insistence of the complainant and other allottees, who wanted to shift to the completed flats for obvious reasons the possession was given 03.11.2020. The possession was taken by them without any protest and admittedly, the complainant and other allottees have been living in the flats since then. Even  admittedly, they paid common area maintenance charges as well, although in part. Even the conveyance cum sale deed has been executed in this regard vide registered sale deed dated 21.03.2023.. In this view of the matter, in the instant case, the issuance or necessity of obtaining Partial Completion Certificate prior to handing over of actual physical possession is only a formality. Fact remains that the complainant is occupying the flat since 01.11.2020 and is residing there ever since without any demur, paying part maintenance charges, got the sale deed/conveyance deed executed and now after a lapse of more than 3 years has woken up from slumber and filed the instant complaint, which is totally frivolous, false and has been filed only to harass the OPs and for extraneous considerations. The complaint is totally barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. No rejoinder filed.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. After thoroughly scrutinizing the record it is an admitted fact  that the possession of the unit in question was taken by the complainant on 3.11.2020  and the present case has been filed on 29.1.2024. The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs are charging maintenance charges in the absence of occupation certificate.
7. The complainant  has been occupying the unit in question since November 2020 and residing there eversince without any demur and paying maintenance charges and even got the sale deed executed and now after lapse of more than three years he has woken from slumber and filed the instant complaint in 2024 though the cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2020. Moreover, admittedly the complainant has already availed award from RERA for delay in handing over possession vide order Exhibit C-9.  Hence, the complaint is beyond the period of limitation. 
8.  Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as under:-

“69(1).Limitation period. –

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.”

 

9. The Hon’ble  Supreme Court  in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries AIR 2009 SC 2210 held as under:-

"“the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

10.  In view of the above, the present complaint is clearly barred by limitation, hence not maintainable. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
11.   Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
12.   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
30/9/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member