DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 3^rd   day of May, 2024

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                    :   Smt. Vidya A., Member                      

                      :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                                            Date of Filing: 04/01/2024  

                                 CC/8/2024

Dinesh Valsakumar,

S/o. Valsakumar,

No.11, 2^nd Cross, Bengiappa Garden,

Santhi Nagar, Bangalore – 560027

Rep.by Power of Attorney Holder

Anoop Jajodia, S/o. Kanhaiya Lal Jajodia,

Flat No.502, Daliya Block,

The Garden 9, Magadi Road,

Bangalore North, Bangalore – 560023.                                     -                    Complainant

(By Adv.P.B. Sajith)

                                                                                                              Vs  

1. M/s. Haridas Builders,

“Erandath Pathayapura”,

Ottapalam, Palakkad – 679 101

Rep.by Managing Partner P.R. Haridas.

2. P.R.Haridas,

S/o. Late Lt. Col. P.R.Nair,

“Erandath Pathayapura”,

Ottapalam, Palakkad – 679 101.

(OPs by Adv. N. Sreeraj)                                                                 -                            Opposite parties

                                             ORDER IN THE QUESTION OF MAINTAINABILITY

                By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President.

1. The complainant claims to have entered into an agreement with OPs 1 & 2 regarding construction and transfer of an apartment in a flat on 15/3/2018. On 8/3/2023, the bank from which the complainant had availed financial assistance issued a notice to complainant to submit the original documents of the flat. From 2018 onwards the complainant had been trying his best to get the flat registered in his favour. But the opposite parties had refused to do so. It was   subsequent to receipt of this notice dated 8/3/2023 that the complainant came to know that the OPs had executed a sale deed with regard to the flat ear-marked for the complainant in favour of strangers on 25/1/2021. This complaint is filed seeking return of the amounts paid by the complainant to the opposite parties after availing financial assistance from HDFC bank.
2. Even though OPs had filed version, counter pleadings are not reiterated in view of the fact that this complaint is being taken up for hearing on the question of maintainability based on bar of limitation.
3. The tripartite agreement was entered into between the complainant and OPs on 15/3/2018. As on the date of filing, 04/01/2024, 6 years has elapsed. Complainant contended that there was continuing cause of action since this was a dispute with regard to construction of a flat and that there is no bar in filing the complaint.
4. It would be pertinent to note that case of the complainant is not with regard to the OPs failing to complete the construction of the apartment but only with failure to transfer the ownership. On going through the pleadings, we do not find this to be a dispute with regard to delayed construction of an apartment. The reliefs sought for by the complainant is for return of the amounts paid by him to the opposite parties based on a tripartite agreement dated 15/3/2018. The complainant has not produced any documents to prove that the complainant had been continuously and vigilantly following up the construction of the building. We are unable to appreciate the contention of the complainant that he came to notice the ground realities regarding construction only upon receiving a notice dated 8/3/2023 from HDFC bank.
5. A perusal of the pleadings of the complainant would prove that subsequent to entering into an agreement with the opposite parties on 15/3/2018, the complainant has turned a blind eye.  We are of the opinion that the complainant cannot take advantage of the benefit of the principles behind continuing cause of action where he himself is to be held liable and accountable for negligence in not following up further developments post entering into an agreement with OP on 15/3/2018.
6. We therefore dismiss this complaint as being barred by limitation.

Pronounced in open court on this the 3^rd day of May, 2024.

                               Sd/-                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                                                                   President

                                                                                         Sd/-

                          Vidya.A

                                              Member         

                               Sd/-

                Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                                                   Member           

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, failing which they will be weeded out.