| BEFORE THE BENGALURU RURAL AND URBAN I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM , I FLOOR, BMTC, B BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-27 | | PRESENT SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.SC., B.ED., LL.B., PRESIDENT | | SRI.H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER |
|
| |
| Complaint Case No. CC/353/2018 | | ( Date of Filing : 05 Mar 2018 ) |
| | | | 1. 1. Dr.Thippeswamy M.N., | | S/o Late Sri.M.Nagendrappa, Aged about 45 years residing in Apartment NO.116, First Floor Block I, Ram s Lake View Meadows, No.12 137 138, Kattigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Kattigenahalli Post, Palanahalli Bengaluru North, Bengaluru 560 064. | | 2. 2. Mrs.B.Smitha, W/o Dr.Thippeswamy M.N., Aged about 39 years, | | residing in Apartment NO.116, First Floor, Block-I, Ram s Lake View Meadows, No.12/137/138, Kattigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Kattigenahalli Post, Palanahalli, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru 560 064 |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. M/s Panchamukhi Enterprises | | Partnership Firm Represented by its Power Of Attorney Holder Sri S. Ramaswamy Reddy, Proprietor of M/s Ram s Associates Office at Flat No. FA Ground Floor, Royal Enclave Defence Colony, Indiranahagar, Bangalore 560 038 |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| |
| BEFORE: | | | | HON'BLE MR. H.R.SRINIVAS, B.Sc. LL.B., PRESIDENT | | | HON'BLE MR. SURESH.D., B.Com., LL.B. MEMBER | |
| |
| For the Complainant: | | For the Opp. Party: | |
| Dated : 15 May 2018 |
| Final Order / Judgement | CC:353/2018 Dated:15.05.2018 Perused the complaint and the documents filed along with. The complainants have purchased the flat No. 116 constructed by the O.P. It is alleged in para 5 of the complaint that even after three years of occupying the flat, the O.P has not completed the works undertaken as per the sale deed/agreement. On perusing the same, there is no mention of the works to be carried out by the O.P. Further the sale deed is executed on 12.03.2014 and complaint is filed on 05.03.2018 and complainants have been in possession of the said flat from then onwards and has to file the complaint within two years thereon for any of the deficiency in service. It is worth to note that complainant himself stated that the cause of action accrued in the year 2014. As per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act it reads thus:- “[24A. Limitation period.— (1) The District Forum, 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 Forum, 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 National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.]” Since the purchase of the flat is in the year 2014 and now after lapse of more than 4 years, the complainant has come up alleging deficiency in service, no proper explanation has been offered for the delay and also no application filed to condone the delay. Viewing from any angle, we are of the considered opinion that, the complaint is barred by limitation. Under the circumstances, acting under Section 12 (3) of Consumer Protection Act the complaint is hereby rejected. | |
| |
| | | [HON'BLE MR. H.R.SRINIVAS, B.Sc. LL.B.,] | PRESIDENT
| | | | [HON'BLE MR. SURESH.D., B.Com., LL.B.] | MEMBER
| |
