BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 29^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This  complaint has been  filed  against  04 opposite parties  seeking direction against  OPs a) To declare the liability of OPs as jointly and severally

2. To transfer the said property in my name
3. To direct OP-1 to4 to pay complainant jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards physical and mental agony.
4. In alternative, direct the OP-3 namely Y.R.Janardhana Rao, to transfer an alternative plot/immovable property of the same measurement allotted to complainant by OP company.

2.The case of the complainant in brief is as under:

The complainant was allotted site bearing no.258 measuring 30X40 sq.ft. by M/s Mallige International Pvt. Ltd., by accepting Rs.1,21,000/- from the complainant between 1997-1999.

It is further case of the complainant that he was to be paid  Rs.20,000/- towards registration charges and khata transfer, but he paid only Rs.10,000/- under confirmation receipt, when he tred to pay remaining amount of  Rs.10,000/- management refused to accept the amount without any reason. Hence, this complaint.   

3. In response to the  notice, OPs    appear and file separate  versions and additional versions.

4. OP-1  contends  that the complaint is barred by limitation, even though the complainant has paid amount during 1997-1999, but the complainant remains silent  for 04 years. OP-1 issued notice to its members called them to get registered  sale deed. After lapse of 10 years this complaint is filed. Therefore, the OP-1 requests to dismiss the complaint.

5. The OP-2 contends that  the allegations made in the complaint are disputed and false. OP-2                                                       disputed the payment of Rs.1,21,000/- and allotment of site. He also disputed demand for payment of Rs.20,000/- and payment of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant. OP-2 has not received any money and not entered any transactions with the complainant. There is delay in filing of this complaint and complaint is barred by limitation.

6.  OP-3 files separate version. OP-3 denied that the complainant had applied for site in Mallige International Ltd. Bearing site no.258 by paying Rs.1,21,000/-. OP-3 also denies demand of Rs.20,000/- and payment of Rs.10,000/- under confirmation receipt.

7. M/s Mallige International Ltd., is being represented by two directors namely B.K.Sannakki and Madar Saheb, who executed release deed dt.20.02.2002 in favour of OP-1. He also resigned as director of M/s Mallige International Pvt. Ltd., on 16.09.2003. His resignation letter and Form-32 are accepted. He was relinquished from all his liabilities, duties and responsibilities of the company. Therefore, he is not liable to comply the request made by the complainant. He requests to dismiss the complaint.

8. The complainant files affidavit evidence. The OPs have filed their affidavit evidences. The complainant relies on certain documents. OP-3 Y.R.Janardhana Rao also relies on certain documents.

9.          Heard the arguments of the  parties. Perused records.

10.  The following points arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation and not maintainable on this date?
2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as mentioned in the complaint?
4. What order?

11.   Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:-Affirmative.

      Point no.2&3:-Do not survive for   consideration.

      Point No.4:-As per the final order.

REASONS

12. Point No.1:. OP-1 who is represented by B.D.Sannakki admits payment of Rs.1,21,000/- and Rs.10,000/- by the complainant. Whereas other OPs have disputed all  the transactions including payment of amount. According to the complainant, he has paid Rs.1,21,000/- between 1997-1999. According to him he made another payment of Rs.10,000/- in the year 2003, but this complaint came to be filed in the year 2013. The complainant no way whispered about cause of action, but filed this complaint in the year 2013. The OPs rely  on following decisions and  contended that as per decisions the complaint is barred by limitation.

1. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal no.2067/2002 in the matter between State Bank of India V/s B.S.Agriculture Industries(I)
2. In the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in  Civil Appeal no.4962/2002 in the matter of  Kandimalla Raghavaiah & co. V/s National Insurance co. Ltd.
3. In the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in France.B.Martin’s & another V/s Mrs. Mafalda Maria Terasa Rodrigues dt.24.08.1999
4. In the order of Hon’ble State Commission of Haryana in Amrith Singh V/s Hyundai Motors India Pvt. Ltd. & other dt.17.08.2017

13. We carefully perused the facts and ratio involved in the above decisions. The  complaint has to be filed within 02 years and from the date of cause of action.  OP-1 issued letter dt.10.07.2003 for having amount  from the complainant. The letter dt.05.07.2003 also indicates that OP-1 admits receipt of Rs.1,21,000/- and called upon the complainant to remit Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant made payment of Rs.10,000/- in the year July 2003. On 30.01.2002 the OP-1 represented by B.D.Sannakki has admitted the receipt of Rs.1,21,000/-. This payment of Rs.1,21,000/- and Rs.10,000/- proved from the receipts. Rs.1,21,000/- paid between 1997-1999. The complainant issued letter dt.27.06.2013 to the OP-1, but the complainant remained silent for a 10 years without asking OPs. More particularly OP-1, 2 have executed registered release deed in favour of OP3.

14. The OP Y.R.Janardhan Rao has specifically stated that in the year 2002   OP-1 & 2 executed release deed and he resigned from OP-4 company in the year 2003. He also contends that he had submitted Form-32 on 16.09.2003. OP-3 Y.R.Janardhana Rao had submitted his resignation to Managing Director of OP-4 company. It is relevant to note that OP-4 company had filed OS/ 110/2004 against OP-3 Y.R.Janaradhana Rao and B.D.Sannakki. The suit came to be filed through OP-4 its chairman Madhar Saheb, but ultimately the plaintiff M/s Mallige International Pvt. Ltd., got deleted name of Y.R.Jaanardhana Rao by filing memo dt.26.07.2008. OP-1 represented by B.D.Sannakki and OP-2 have executed registered release deed dt.20.02.2002 in favour of OP-3 Y.R.Janardhan Rao relinquishing him  from all his responsibilities.  OS/110/2004 came to be ended in compromise between OP-4 represented by Madhar Saheb and B.D.Sannakki. The resignation of Y.R.Janardhan Rao was accepted in the year 2003.

15. It is relevant to note that the name of the OP-1 company at sy.no.3863 came to be deleted as per gazette notification issued by Government of India between October to November 2017.  Even though OP-1 was existing of the time of filing of the complaint, but name of the OP Y.R.Janardhana Rao was deleted by  accepting his resignation. OP-1 name is no more existing as company on this date. In view of winding up of the company present complaint on this date not maintainable. The complaint is not only maintainable against OP-3 Y.R.Janardhan Rao, but it is also not maintainable against OP-1 &2. The complaint is also barred by limitation.  The complainant seeks relief of sale simplicitor of plot which is not maintainable in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2014(14)S.C.C. 773 in the matter between Ganesh Lal V/s Shyam. The complaint is not been filed within two years from the date of last payment made in the year 2003. Subsequent issuance two years from the date of last payment made in the year 2003. Subsequent issuance of notice by the complainant on 27.06.20013 does not save the limitation. Mere issuance of notice dt.27.06.2013 does not help the complainant to save the limitation.  The complaint is not only barred by limitation  and it is also not maintainable  on this date against OPs. 

16. Point no.2&3:-. It is settled proposition of law that when the complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation, the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs. These two points does not survive for consideration.

17. Point no.4: In view of the discussions referred above, the complaint requires to be dismissed as barred by limitation and also not maintainable.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation and not maintainable.
2. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties and return extra pleadings with documents.  

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 29^th  day of July, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party-3 & 4 :