JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.       The petitioner booked a residential plot in its project known as Omaxe Parkwoods, Baddi-II which the respondent was to develop in District Solan of Himachal Pradesh. The complainant made initial deposit of Rs.1,00,500/- vide cheque dated 21-11-2007 followed by a deposit of Rs.2,00,196/- vide cheque dated 20-08-2008. The respondent vide letter dated 17-05-2010 cancelled the allotment made to the petitioner and forfeited a sum of Rs.1,00,232/- due to non-payment of the installments. The grievance of the petitioner/complainant is that though the development was expected to be completed in about          15 months, that did not materialize and there was no Plot Buyer Agreement executed between the parties. This is also the case of the petitioner that no installment could have been demanded from him without execution of the Plot Buyer Agreement. Being aggrieved from the cancellation of the allotment the petitioner approached the concerned District Forum way of a complaint.

2.       The complaint was resisted inter alia on the ground that it was barred by limitation having been filed more than two years after the cancellation of the allotment. On merits it was alleged that the promise made by the opposite party had been fulfilled and the project was completed as promised. It was also alleged that since the petitioner had failed to pay installments in time, despite various reminders they had no option but to cancel the allotment. It was also claimed that Plot Buyer Agreement was sent to the complainant, in duplicate, along with letter dated 24-10-1998 but he did not care to sign and return the same to the opposite party. A copy of the letter dated 24-10-1998 whereby the Plot Buyer Agreement was sent to the complainant was also annexed to the reply.

3.       The District Forum vide its order dated 24-04-2014, noted that the complainant had opted for installment linked plan and, therefore, he was required to make payment periodically to the opposite party. It was also noticed that the opposite party had placed on record several letters issued to the complainant asking for the installments due from him but the complainant had not made payment as per the demand of the opposite party. The District Forum also noted that the complaint was clearly barred by limitation having been filed on 14-09-2012. However, considering the terms & conditions of the allotment, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs.2,00,464/- to the complainant after deducing the earnest money of Rs.1,00,232/- from the amount deposited by him and also pay Rs.10,000/- to him as the cost of litigation.

          Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 03-06-2014 the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

4.       It is an admitted case that the allotment came to be cancelled vide letter dated 17-05-2010. The complainant admittedly was filed on        14-09-2012. Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the extent it is relevant provides that the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 24A are mandatory and peremptory in nature and, therefore, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to even admit a complaint filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation unless, an application under Sub-Section (2) of the said Section was filed seeking condonation of delay and the District Forum was satisfied that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period. Admittedly, no application under Sub-Section (2) of Section 24A of the Act was filed by the petitioner/complainant. Therefore, the District Forum could not even have entertained the complaint filed by him, as far as the relief of the refund of the amount deposited by him is concerned.

5.       The only relief claimed by the complainant was refund of the money deposited by him, along with compensation for the alleged mental agony and harassment besides cost of litigation. Since the complaint was clearly barred by limitation as far as the relief of refund is concerned and he has also been awarded cost of litigation despite the complaint being time barred, there is absolutely no ground whatsoever for interfering with the order passed by the District Forum and maintained by the State Commission. Since the petitioner/complainant claimed refund and not the possession of the plot which he had booked with the opposite party we need not really go into the question as to whether there was any deficiency in service in the services provided by the opposite party or not. Suffice it to say that it is an admitted case that the complainant had opted for the time linked payment plan and the material filed by the opposite party before the District Forum clearly shows that he did not make payment in time. In fact, even the payment of Rs.2,00,196/- was not made in time since it was required to be made             by 07-05-2008 whereas it was actually made on 20-08-2008. Thus, the complainant/petitioner was clearly a defaultere in making payment to the opposite party.

6.       For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.