Delay in filing of the Appeal is condoned.

               By this First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), the Complainant calls in question the correctness and legality of the order, dated 16.02.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint no.53 of 2016.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint as barred by limitation.  According to the State Commission, the cause of action to file the Complaint had arisen on 12.09.2012, when the Complainant had enquired from the Opposite Parties, Respondents in this Appeal, about the allotment and had visited the site and therefore, the Complaint, filed on 18.01.2016, was beyond the period of two years, as prescribed in Section 24 A of the Act. 

               Since the Complaint was dismissed at the threshold without issuing notice to the Opposite Parties, no notice is required to be issued to them in this Appeal.

               Having heard Mr. Dinesh Agnani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant and perused the documents on record, in particular, the Respondent’s letter, dated 18.11.2015, whereby the offer

-3-

of provisional allotment of the subject plot was withdrawn, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the State Commission and therefore, the Appeal deserves to be allowed.

               Apart from the fact that the non-delivery of possession of the plot by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant by the stipulated date was a continuing default, the real cause of action, leaving the Complainant with no other option but to resort to the legal proceedings, arose only when the offer of provisional allotment was withdrawn vide Respondent’s letter, dated 18.11.2015.  It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order itself, the State Commission has also noted that a further cause of action arose on receipt of letter, dated 07.01.2015, when the statement of account was sent to the Complainant and an additional amount of ₹16,37,553/- was demanded.   That being so, the Complaint, filed on 18.01.2016, was within the period of limitation and could not be dismissed as barred by limitation. {see: Lata Constructions & Ors. Vs. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Ramniklal Shah & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 586}  

               Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the Complaint No.53 of 2016 is restored to the Board of the State Commission for adjudication on merits, after notice to the Opposite Parties.

-4-

               Appellant/his Counsel is directed to appear before the State Commission on 22.06.2016 for further proceedings.

               The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.