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

          The appellants / complainants entered into four separate agreements with the opposite party for purchase of four separate flats from the respondent company, alleging that the possession had not been delivered to them in terms of the said agreement.  The complainant filed a joint complaint, seeking possession of the flats booked by them along with compensation etc.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the opposite party on several grounds.  The State Commission dismissed the complaint vide order dated 11.10.2013, inter-alia on the ground that the flats in question were booked by the complainant for a commercial purpose.  Being aggrieved from the dismissal of the complaint, the complainants who are husband and wife are before this Commission.  Since there is a delay of more than 3 ½ years (1337 days) in filing the appeal they have also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

3.      The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

          “2.     That due to the actions of the Respondent Builder herein the Appellant / Complainant No.1 suffered from a major depressive disorder and was to prone to panic attacks and has been under treatment from 15.10.2013 onwards.  He has been advised by the Doctors to take regular follow ups and the Appellant / Complainant No.1 has been diagnosed with lost of sleep, headache, body ache and chest pain with breathlessness and perspiration.  The Appellant / Complainant No.1 has regularly visited a medical practitioner from the year 2013 to April, 2017 and has finally being certified that his condition is improved and mentally fit to resume daily activities from April, 2017.  A copy of the medical record of the Appellant / Complainant No.1 issued by the Dr. Manjeet Singh Palahe has been filed along with the present First Appeal (Annexure P-10)”.

          It would thus be seen that the only justification given by the appellants / complainants for the inordinate delay of more than 3 ½ years in challenging the order of the State Commission is that one of them namely the complainant No.1 was suffering from major depressive disorder and was having panic attacks for which he was under treatment from 15.10.2013 onwards.  A perusal of the medical record of complainant No.1filed with the appeal (Annexure P-10) would show that he first visited a doctor on 15.10.2013, followed by visits on different dates.  He visited the doctor as many as 25 times and every time the doctor simply noted that his condition was better.  I fail to appreciate what prevented the appellant No.1 from visiting the office of an advocate for instructing him to file an appeal against the order of the State Commission when his condition was regularly improving and he had taken the trouble of visiting the clinic of the doctor as many as 25 times.  Moreover, in case, complainant No.1 / appellant No.1 was unable to undertake the visit to the office of an advocate, complainant No.2 who is his wife could have visited the office of the advocate and instructed him to file an appeal, challenging the order of the State Commission.  That having not been done, there is no escape from the conclusion that the complainants/appellants have failed to explain the inordinate delay of more than 3 ½ years in challenging the order of the State Commission.

4.      On merits, since the complainants / appellants made four separate booking of flats and entered into four separate agreements with the opposite party, giving rise to four independent causes of action, a composite complaint with respect to all the four transactions of purchase of the flats was not maintainable.  The scheme of Consumer Protection Act does not envisage joinder of causes of action, based on different contracts, even if the cause of action happens to be against the same person.  Therefore, four different complaints ought to have been instituted by the complainants, one each in respect of the every agreement executed by them with the respondent.  Therefore, on merits also, the complainants are not likely to succeed in this appeal.

5.      Though, the State Commission has taken a view that the complainants were not consumers they have having booked as many as four flats for the purpose of making gains by investment, I need not go into the aforesaid issue since, the appeal is otherwise liable to be dismissed on the grounds stated hereinbefore.

6.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal as well as the appeal are dismissed, with no order as to costs.