Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1129/2015

MR. MAHBOOB ALAM QURESHI & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                     Date of Arguments: 25.04.17

                                                     Date of decision              : 01.05.17                       

Complaint No. 1129/2015

 

In the matter of:

1.Mr. Mahboob Alam Qureshi

   R/on2184, Qasimjan Street

   Ballimaran, Delhi-110006.

 

2. Mr. Javed Alam Qureshi

    Through AR, Mr. Mahboob Alam Qureshi

    R/o 2184, Qasimjan Street

     Ballimaran, Delhi-110006.                                                                 …..Complainants

 

                                                          Versus

 

M/s TDI Infrastructure P.Ltd.

Through its Managing Director

9,Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001

 

Also at:

 

10, Shaheed Bahagat Singh Marg

 Gole Market, New Delhi-110001.                                                …..Opposite Party

 

  CORAM

                                                                           

SHRI O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER      

1.     ^{Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the  Judgement?  Yes}

^{2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes}

 

                                                                JUDGEMENT

Shri O.P.GUPTA

                This order shall dispose of application for condonation of delay in filing complaint moved by the complainant. The case set up by the complainant is that they booked plot measuring 350 sq. yds. In Future Township Project TDI City  and deposited Rs. 5,42,500/- by cheque dated 27.08.2005 towards 20% of basic price.  They opted for option two according to which they were to pay 10% as the time of allotment and then 10% every two months from the date of allotment with balance 10% at the time of offer for possession. The complainants were to pay 10% of basic price i.e. Rs. 2,71,250/- on or before 08.08.06.  However, OP sent letter as early as on 16.12.05 asking them to pay balance Rs. 3,40,375/-  The said letter showed second installment to be due on 10.12.05.  The complainant  approached OP executive who told not to worry and said that it was by mistake. OP again sent reminder dated 25.01.06 demanding Rs. 3,40,375/-.  OP cited financial constraint for issuing said reminder and persuaded the complainant to pay Rs. 1,40,000/- on 03.02.06 through cheque.  They also paid Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash for which only a katcha receipt was given.  Kacha receipt mentioned the amount as Rs. 2000/- (as short of Rs. 2,00,000/-).

2.         OP issued revised communication dated 29.05.06 vide which balance due was shown as 10,16,160/-.  Be due on 10.02.06  and 10.04.06.  The same included interest of Rs. 6590.87.  On persuasion they again made payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 13.07.06 and Rs.375/- on 14.07.06.  Another communication dated 27.06.06 showing amount due as Rs. 6,82,500/- was sent. OP allotted plot No.J-139  vide allotment letter dated 08.08.06 and showed balance of Rs. 14,03,312/-.  Final reminder dated 05.09.06 showing balance of Rs. 16,95,070/- was received.  The complainant had paid Rs. 8,16,000/- in cash for which kacha receipt was issued which were not reflected by the OP in the letters sent  by it.  OP wanted to clandestinely avoid the said payment.  On insistence by complainant  OP agreed to adjust the said amount by reducing the rate of plot from Rs. 7750/- per sq. yd. to Rs. 6150/- per sq. yd. Still payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid in cash on 02.02.16 was not adjusted.  

3.         To utter shock and dismay of complainant the OP cancelled plot No. J-139 vide letter dated 13.12.12.  They sent notice on 04.09.14 but to no use.  Hence this complaint for awarding compensation of damages to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-,  restoration of plot at original cost, interest @ 18% per annum on amount of Rs. 25,08,250/-, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- or such higher compensation as may be deemed fit for mental agony and harassment is also prayed.

4.         The complainants themselves moved application for condonation of delay alongwith complaint.  In the complaint as well as application for condonation of delay it has been mentioned that firstly cause of action arose on 13.12.12 and then OP cancelled the allotment of plot. The complainants were planning to file complaint in November 2014 but got a call from OP’s office promising some resolution.  The cause of action finally arose in August 2015 when complainant went to meet OP to explore possibility of better deal from said date the complaint is within time but to avoid any complication and  adverse consequences complainant has filed the application for condonation of delay.

5.         The OP did not file any reply.  The counsel stated he wanted to oppose application for condonation of delay for making oral statement.

6.         We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments for that purpose.  The counsel for the OP cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. V.N.Srikhande Vs. Ms. Anita Sena Fernandes AIR 2011 SC 212.  In that case National Commission condoned the delay in filing the complaint for medical negligence.  In appeal Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any person of ordinary prudence suffering pain and discomfort after surgery would have consulted the concerned surgeon or any other competent doctor and sought advice.  The complainant did nothing except taking some pain killer. The complainant did not explain as to why she kept quite for about nine years despite pain and agony.  The complaint was dismissed as being barred by limitation.

7.         On the other hand the counsel for complainant relied upon decision of National Commission  in RP No.1058/14 titled as Ravi Development vs. Jayanti Bhai V.Ranka decided on 18.02.14 in which it was held that relief for possession is continuous.  The said decision is not applicable.  The reason being that in the said case complainant pleaded that they have not received any termination letter.  In the present case complainant has admitted that they received cancellation letter dated 13.12.12 which gave rise to cause of action. Any efforts thereafter to reconcile the matter cannot have the effect of extending limitation.

8.         It was held by National Commission in RP No. 2618/02 titled as C.H.Vithal Reddy vs. Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank decided on 14.03.02 that condonation of delay incomplaint is a serious matter.  It is just like suit for which there is no provision for condonation of delay in Limitation Act. Hence delay in filing the complaint should not be condoned liberally.

9.         The application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

            With this complaint automatically stands dismissed as being barred by limitation.

            One copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

                (ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                                        (O.P.GUPTA)

                MEMBER                                                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

 

 

                        Sbm