​HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed by the complainants under section 35 read with sections 38(2) & 39(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging gross deficiency and negligence of service on the part of the opposite parties.

2. The complainants have filed this consumer complaint case praying for the following reliefs :-

“i) To direct the Opposite Parties to complete the construction and handover the possession in favour of the complainants in respect of the 55% of the Built up area as per sanction plan at Premises No. 68/B/46/1D, Raja S.C. Mallick Road, Police Station – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700092 under Mouza Roypur appertaining to Dag No. 816, Khatian No. 315, Pargana – Khaspur, Touzi No. 50, J.L. No. 33, having assessee no. 210990500873 under K.M.C. Ward No. 99, morefully described in Schedule – “B” herein.

ii) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainants for delay construction and delay in delivery of possession of the owners allocation;

iii) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainants also on the ground of gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of OPs as well as for immense sufferings for a prolonged period; mental agony, harassment suffered by the complainants;

iv) To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 932000/- being the rent due for 75 months @ Rs.12,000/- per month till the date of filing of instant case and further to pay rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/- till the disposal of case, being the rents towards alternative accommodation as per Article V clause 3 of the Development Agreement dated 16^th January, 2017;

v) To direct the opposite parties to handover the sanction plan and the completion certificate in respect of the constructed building at the Schedule –“B” property;

vi) To Direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as litigation cost;

vii) Mandatory Injunction restraining the opposite parties from creating any third party interest in respect of the Schedule – B property;

viii) Any further order or orders, direction or directions as this Learned Forum may deem fit and proper. “

3. Heard Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants.

4. We have perused the petition of complaint wherefrom it appears to us that the complainants are the owners of the land measuring about 2 cottahs 15 chitaks be a little more or less lying and situated at the premises of 68/B/46/1D Raja S.C. Mallick Road, Police Station Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 092 under mouza Roypur appertaining to Dag No. 816, Khatian No. 315, Pargana Khaspur, Touzi No. 50, J.L. No. 33 having assessee No. 210990500873 under Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Ward No. 99. The complainants entered into a development agreement with the opposite parties on 16.01.2017. The agreement for development executed on 16.01.2017. As per the development agreement it was agreed that the opposite parties shall complete the construction within 24 months and deliver the owners’ allocation within 24 months. It appears from the petition of complaint that the cause of action of this case firstly arose on 16.01.2017 when the opposite parties entered into an agreement for development with the complainants.

5. This complaint has been filed on 24.04.2023 which reveals that after about six years from the date of execution of the deed of conveyance in respect of the flats, the complainants have filed this complaint case before this Commission, which is not legally permitted in view of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

6. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 runs as follows :-

“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.”

7. From the aforesaid provision it appears that the provision is peremptory in nature, requiring the Consumer Commission to examine before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Commission, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint, if sufficient cause is shown.

8. On careful perusal of the record it appears to me that this complaint has not been filed in time. There is delay in filing the petition of complaint by the complainant. Moreover, it appears to us that this complaint is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay.

9. At the time of hearing on the point of admission, the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants has submitted that the complainants have approached the opposite parties for delivery of owners’ allocation, the opposite parties out rightly refused and misbehaved with the complainants. The complainants have made several complaints against the atrocities, illegal and unfair acts of the opposite parties. However, this is really unfortunate to state that the police authorities have acted as an ally to the opposite parties wherein they failed to register an FIR against the opposite parties. The opposite parties have failed to act in accordance with the law and agreement dated 16.01.2017.

10. He has further argued that the cause of action of this case had been continuing since then on day to day basis.

11. We fail to accept the contentions as made by the Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainants.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors., reported at (2014) 6 SCC 460 has held the following :-

“10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided.........”

13. The Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported at III (2006) CPJ 414 NC, has observed that :-

“ no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.”

14. In the present case also this consumer case has been filed after almost six years from the date, the cause of action arose. Even though the complainants made several representations to the opposite parties we think that the same cannot be considered as the date of accrual of a fresh cause of action.

15. We find that this consumer case is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay. On the date of execution of development agreement, cause of action arose, then it was the date of the complainant to approach before the Court of Law by filing a complaint within the stipulated period of limitation i.e. within two years from the date of cause of action. But without doing so, the complainants have filed this complaint before this Commission after a long period of six years from the date of cause of action without filing any separate petition praying for condonation of delay which is totally contrary to the provision of section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

16. In the result, the consumer complaint case being No. CC/55/2023 is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation and without being admitted.

17. The complaint case is, thus, disposed of accordingly.