Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/454/2023

NEERAJ SHEORAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DLF HOMES PANCHKULA, PVT, LTD - Opp.Party(s)

NAVEEN SHEOKAND

17 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	454 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	26.08.2023
Date of Decision	:	17.09.2024

 

                       

                            

 

1.  Neeraj Sheoran son of Sh.Shilender Kumar r/o Floor No.D-1/19-SF, DLF Valley, Sector 3, Pinjore-Kalka Urban Complex, Panchkula.

2.  Raj Bala Sheoran w/o Sh.Shilender Kumar r/o Floor No.D-1/19-SF, DLF Valley, Sector 3, Pinjore-Kalka Urban Complex, Panchkula.

    ...  Complainants

 

Versus

 

 

1]  M/s DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD., DLF Valley, Pinjore, Sector 3, Pinjore-Kalka Urban Complex, Panchkula-134107 through its Authorized Signatory/Officer.

    Email:crmchandigarh@dlf.com

2]  Director General, Department of Town and Country Planning Haryana, Plot No.3, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160018.

    Email:tcpharyana7@gmail.com

 

... Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,  PRESIDENT

         MR.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA,  MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY:- Sh.Naveen Sheokand, Counsel for Complainants.

Sh.Ashish Pandey, Advocate Proxy for Ms.Tanika Goel, Counsel for OP No.1.

OP No.2 ex-parte.

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainants have filed the present complaint pleading that OP Builder developed a Residential Group Housing Project under the name and style of “The Valley” situated in Sector 3, Kalka Pinjore Urban Complex. The previous allottee Mr.Sandeep Singh booked a floor in the said project and allotted Floor No.D1/19 SF and then the complainants got transferred in their name on 12.07.2019. It is stated that OP No.1 vide letter dated 29.10.2016 offered the physical possession of the said unit having occupation certificate.  It is also stated that the complainant was shocked on receipt of letter dated 29.10.2016 (Annexure C-2) for offer of the possession whereby he was informed that the final area of the unit increased in area of 200 sq. ft. and asked to deposit an amount Rs.6,36,300/- and when the OP No.1 was enquired about it, it assured that the demand is made as per occupation certificate. Accordingly, the complainant, after making all payments as demanded, took the possession of the Unit in question on 23.07.2019 (Annexure C-3).

         It is pleaded that the complainant received the occupation certificate dated 06.12.2021 which shows the area 1350 sq. ft. and not the increased area as claimed by the OP No.1 as 1751 sq.ft. in offer of possession letter (Annexure C-2) whereby the complainant was informed that the final area of the unit is increased in area of 200 sq. ft. and informed to deposit the amount for increased area. It is also pleaded that the OP No.1 contrary to the occupation certificate issued by the competent authority, had increased the saleable area according to its whims and fancies and wrongly charged the complainant on the pretext of increased area.  It is further pleaded that the OP No.1 has the occupation certificate only for 1350 sq. ft. whereas it offered the possession of the flat measuring 1751 sq. ft. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed by the complainants seeking directions to the OPs to refund the additional charged amount of Rs.6,36,300/- for the increased area along with interest from the date of deposit till realization as well as for compensation and litigation expenses. 

 

2]       After notice of the complaint, the OP No.1 has put in appearance and filed written version stating that the complaint is barred by limitation being filed after two years from the date of cause of action. On merits, stated that the Unit in question was allotted to the complainant vide Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement 11.05.2011 (Annexure OP-1); the Occupation Certificate was received on 16.06.2016 and the possession was offered to the original allottee on 15.11.2016 (in fact 29.10.2016) and the possession was taken by subsequent allottee Neeraj Sheoran on 23.07.2019. It is stated that original allottee i.e. Sandeep Singh entered into settlement with OP No.1 on 04.06.2019 w.r.t. compensation for delay in possession and other reliefs sought by the original allottee and further the amount of Rs.6,41,000/- was credited/adjusted in account of original allottee i.e. Sandeep Singh and it was agreed between both the parties that the deed constitutes a full and final settlement between the parties and neither party shall have any claim/demand/liability against each other. It is also submitted that term “covered area” used in Occupation Certificate is different from “saleable area” in as much as it does not include balconies, staircase, ledges and the proportionate share of common areas etc. and the Sale price of the unit is based on Saleable Area defined in Buyer’s Agreement. It is submitted that the increase in area is actually attached/forms part of the Floor allotted to the complainants and they are in possession and using the same. It is pleaded that to clarify the change or increase in area, Audit Report and Certification of the final saleable area of individual floors in the DLF Home Panchkula Project has been obtained (Annexure OP-8) from Statutory Body i.e. School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi on 07.06.2017 (an institution under the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India).  It is also pleaded that the controversy with regard to the instant project was put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of judgment dated 10.05.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.4910-4941/2019 and Civil Appeal Nos.4942-4945 of 2019 titled as DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda (2019) SCC Online SC 689. Denying all other allegations, the OP No.1 lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

3]       OP No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.11.2023.

 

4]       Complainants did not file replication to the written version of OP No.1.

 

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

 

6]       We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the entire record.  

 

7]       In view of the specific objection taken by OP No.1, we deem it proper to first deal with the question of Limitation. 

 

8]       It is observed that the possession of the unit in question has admittedly been offered on 29.10.2016 by the OP No.1 to the complainant and therefore, the cause of action, if any, would start from the said date.

9]       As per Section 69 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced hereunder, the limitation for filing the complaint is 2 years from the date of cause of action:-

“69. (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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

 

         Thus, the limitation to file the present complaint expired on 28.10.2018, whereas it has been filed on 26.08.2023 i.e. after a delay of more than 4½ years, which is clearly barred by limitation.

 

10]      In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC/789/2020 titled as Avtar Singh Chauhan vs. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Anr., decided on 02.03.2023 has held that the limitation period would start from ‘the date of offer of possession’ and compensation for delayed delivery of possession would be tenable till the date of offer of possession after receiving the occupation certificate and not till ‘the date of delivery of possession’. The relevant extract of said judgment is reproduced as under:-

 

“13. On an overall consideration of the ratio in all the decisions referred to above, it becomes crystal clear that any claim on account of delayed possession would be tenable only till the date of ‘offer of possession’, but of course, after the Occupancy Certificate has been received by the Builder/Developer.  There is no entitlement of an allottee for such compensation "till the date of delivery of possession" as the Builder's liability ends once he makes the offer of possession. Further, as we have already seen, some orders which had directed that such delayed compensation was payable till the date of actual possession, were themselves modified not only by the Hon'ble Apex Court, but also by the Principal Bench of this Commission, and the compensation was found payable only "till the date of offer of possession" after having received the Occupancy Certificate.  This would mean that the cause of action qua the Complainants would commence from the date of offer of possession and not from any subsequent date such as that of the actual delivery of possession.  It is also to be noted that the objection on the ground of limitation bar did not arise in any of the aforesaid decisions.

14.       But in the present case, a specific objection in this regard has been raised.  It is undeniable that in the present case, the Occupancy Certificate was received by the Opposite Party on 21.2.2017, and only after that the offer of possession was made to the Complainants on 23.3.2017.  Consequently, the period of limitation starting from the latter date would end on 23.3.2019.  Any Complaint filed after that date would per se be beyond limitation…….xxxxxx

16.  For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the present Complaints are manifestly barred by limitation, since the same were filed more than three years after the offer of possession was made to the Complainants in the month of March, 2017.”

 

11]      In the recent judgment, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, passed in FA/303/2021 titled DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. vs. Satish Goyal & Anr., decided on 07.10.2023 has held that State Commission erred in not considering the fact of limitation and further there was no application for condonation of delay and still the State Commission proceeded to adjudicate the matter without addressing the fundamental issue of delay. The relevant extract of said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"16. The complaint was barred by limitation before the State Commission. The State Commission also erred in not considering the fact that there was no application for condonation of delay and proceeded to adjudicate in the matter without addressing the fundamental issue of delay."

 

12]      The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in CC No.79 of 2019 titled as R.S. Malik Vs. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., decided on 12.07.2019 has held that:-

8.  Even though, no cause of action had accrued in favour of the complainant to file the instant complaint as there was no grievance of his put forth at the time of taking over the possession, still if we exclude two years limitation period to file the complaint from the date of offer of possession, the complaint is barred by limitation as there is a delay of five months in filing the same. In our opinion, the complaint deserves outright dismissal as the same is hopelessly time barred. The complaint deserves dismissal as the same does not assign any reason or ground for inordinate deliberate delay in filing the complaint after lapse of five months and even no application has been filed for condoning the unexplained, deliberate, hopeless delay in filing the complaint.

 

13]      The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002 - State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) (AIR 2009 SC 2210) wherein the Complaint was dismissed as time-barred, has observed that:-

"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.”

 

14]      Taking into consideration the above discussion, findings and settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Consequently, the present complaint is not maintainable and stands dismissed being barred by limitation.

15]      Pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17.09.2024                             

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

as