Date of Judgment Tuesday, the 6th Day of October,2015
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal is directed against the order being No.2 dated 29.05.2014 passed by Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas in Complaint Case being No.226 of 2014 rejecting the same on the ground that the Complaint case was barred by limitation.
Being aggrieved with the impugned order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal on grounds, inter-alia, that the Ld. DCDRF failed to appreciate that it was categorically mentioned in the Brochure as well as in the Agreement that after developments of Civil Works and modern facilities like connecting roads, water supply, children’s school, super market, shopping complex, telecom centre etc. the Respondent would deliver the plot of land to the Appellant and the said delivery would take place after registration of the plot of land and, therefore, since the Appellant has been making request to the Respondents for completion of the development work the cause of action may be considered as continuing one.
The case of the Complainants in brief, is that in the month of April, 1997 they entered into an Agreement for sale with the Opposite Party Company for purchasing the piece and parcel of a land measuring more or less on 04 cottahs 07 chittacks 05 square feet appertaining to Touzi No.58, J.L. No.78, R.S. No.328 under Khatian No.464, Dag No.1063 Pargana Magura of Mouza Bagi, P.S. Bishnupur, District South 24 Parganas and subsequently demarcated as Plot No.AH-5&4 (Part) at a consideration of Rs.1,87,000/-. Accordingly, the Complainants paid entire amount to the Opposite Party Company and the plot of land was regisytered in favour of the Complainants on 06.07.2004 although possession of the same had not been delivered to them. The Complainants specifically stated that since then they have been requesting the Opposite Parties to deliver the possession of the said plot of land to them, even by serving a letter dated 20.12.2013 through their Ld. Advocate, Mr. Suvendu Das. However, all were in vain. Hence, the Complainants filed the complaint case praying for direction upon the Opposite Parties to deliver khas peaceful vacant and uncumbered physical possession to the Complainant and to develop the project site mentioned in the Schedule inserted in the petition of Complaint by constructing roads, drains, making arrangement for supply of water and electricity, providing other civil amenities and modern facilities like school, park etc. in default, the Opposite Party should compensate to the Complainant by making payment of such amount on prevailing market rate as to be ascertain by registration authority, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.40,000/- as to damages and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
Hearing the Complainant on point of admission Ld. DCDRF below rejected the Complaint case.
In course of hearing of appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that it is a matter of continuing cause of action and, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.
None was found present on behalf of the Respondent.
On perusal of materials on record it appears from the photocopy of the Sale Deed that the registration of the Sale Deed was done on 06.07.2004. It also appears from the record that the Complaint case was filed in 2014.
Therefore, in the instant case a consumer vis-a-vis Service Provider relationship had been established by and between the Appellants and Respondents at the time of entering into agreement for sale by the parties. The process of sale completes by transferring of the title of the property in favour of the Appellants. Accrual of cause of action must be occurred within that period i.e. from the date of agreement for sale to the date of registration of Deed of Conveyance. In the instant case, the exhaustive period of ten years had been passed before filing of the petition of Complainant. In State Bank of India – Vs. – M/s. B.S. Agriculture Industries reported in (2013 (4) CPR 427 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that as matter of law Consumer must deal with Complainant on merit only if Complainant has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has tried to impress us by submitting that the Appellants have served an Advocate’s letter dated 20.12.2013 upon the Respondent No.2 and, therefore, the cause of action is within the stipulated time as envisaged u/s.24A.
As regards this point, we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2014 (I) CPR 218 (Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator – Vs. – Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta) wherein it has been held that by serving legal notice or by making representation period of limitation cannot be extended.
In such view of the matter, we are of opinion that Ld. DCDRF below rightly passed the impugned order and there is no need to interfere with it.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that the appeal is dismissed ex-parte. The impugned order is upheld.
