SHAYMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

1. The instant petition of complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 47 read with section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for certain reliefs as prayed for against the opposite parties herein.
2. We have heard the ld advocate appearing for the complainants. We have carefully perused the petition of complaint wherefrom it appears to us that the complainants are the intended purchasers, the opposite parties 1 to 3 are the developers and opposite parties 4 to 7 are the land owners/confirming parties herein. One residential flat being  no – 3C on the 3^rd floor South-East portion measuring area about 1859 sft along with covered medium size car parking space is the subject property herein. The complainants were looking for a residential flat along with covered car parking space and upon perusal of the advertisement the complainants visited the office of the developers. After discussion with the developers, the complainants agreed to purchase the subject property at a consideration amount of Rs.92,95,000/-( ninety two lakh and ninety five thousand ) only.
3. The complainants paid Rs.3,00,000/- on 09/12/2015 as a booking money and subsequently they paid Rs.19,95,000/- as advance money to the developers. The complainants entered into an agreement for sale dated 03/02/2016 with the opposite parties. It is pertinent to mention here that the ops agreed to handover the possession of the subject property to the complainants within March, 2016 but the ops failed to hand over the same within  the stipulated period of time.
4. The complainants already got the possession of the subject property on February 2018 but the ops failed to provide  demarked area of car parking space. Be it mentioned here that the said car parking space was already handed over to any third party instead of the complainants by way of lottery process. It is further case of the complainant that the lottery method was conducted by the ops on 31/10/2020 without any prior intimation to the complainants. The complainant had been facing number of difficulties in respect of car parking space.
5. On 20/10/2020, the opposite party no -1 provided a draft copy of the deed of conveyance in respect of subject property to the complainants. But there were some anomalies and for that reasons the matter was informed to the developers for necessary corrections. But the ops did not pay any heed.
6. On 14/12/2020 the complainants sent letter to the ops with a request of delivery of the draft copy of the deed of conveyance after necessary corrections but the ops did not send any reply. The complainants again sent another letter on 15/03/2021 with a request to execute and register the deed of conveyance but the ops kept mum.
7. It is further stated that by sending letter dated 31/07/2021 to the complainants, the op no – 1 demanded Rs.9,34,761.32 towards GST, Service Tax etc. He also demanded power supply charges at the rate of Rs.100/- per sft, generator charges at the rate of Rs.50/- per sft and legal fees charges along with 18% tax rate though the op n o – 1 did not make any clear clarification to the complainant in this regard. The ops made illegal charges.
8. The complainants further sent an advocate’s letter dated 08/02/2023 addressed to the ops no 1, 4 and 6 with a request to execute and register the deed of conveyance. The complainants also demanded to make refund of TDS amount of Rs.92,950/- along with 18% interest. But no fruitful response was come out from the end of the ops. The ops demanded extra amount causing unfair trade practice.
9. The cause of action includes the bundle of facts and it arose on and from 01/04/2016 and it is still continuing. The paid value of the consideration amount of Rs.92,95,000/- only. In pursuant to the aforesaid agreement the ops failed to perform their duties properly causing clear case of gross negligence and deficiency in service on their part. Having no other alternative the complainant came before the Commission for getting proper reliefs as prayed for against the ops.
10. It appears from the petition of complaint that cause of action initially arose on 01/04/2016 which is clearly stated in the paragraph no 15 of the petition of complaint. The ops averred that the cause of action is continuing and repeating but the same has not been clearly explained. Actually it is settled principle of law that mere sending various representations addressed to the party/parties does not always constitute continued/repeated cause of action.  
11. This complaint has been filed on 20/03/2023 which reveals that after about 7 years from the date of cause of action (initially arose on 01/04/2016), the complainants have filed this complaint before this Commission, which is not legally permitted in view of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
12. In this respect we try to rely upon section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which runs as follows:-

      “69. Limitation Period.- (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

     (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.

    Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

13.  From the aforesaid provision it appears to us that the provision is peremptory in nature, requiring the Consumer Commission to examine before admission of  the complaint that whether it has been filed within two years or not from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Commission, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the petition of complaint, if sufficient cause is shown.
14. On careful perusal of the records, it appears to us that this complaint has not been filed within the stipulated period of time in pursuant to the provision of law enumerated earlier. There is a clear delay in filing the petition of complaint by the complainant. Moreover, it appears to us that instant complaint/petition is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay.
15. It appears from the petition of complaint that the cause of action, being bundle of facts, has been arisen on and from 01/04/2016. From April 2016 to February 2018, the complainants kept mum. No action was taken against the ops during that period as it is revealed from the petition of complaint that the complainants got the possession of the subject property on February 2018 but the ops failed to provide demarcated car parking space to the complainants. No reasonable explanation has been given regarding long silence during this particular period of time. But it is settled principle of law that the reasonable explanation should be given in order to take the plea of continuous or repeated cause of action. At this juncture there is no hesitation to hold that the cause of action has already been started but the complainants kept silent. The complainants were supposed to initiate or take legal action against the ops forthwith but in vain. Rather the complainants were continuously killing their valuable time which should not be done by them for the sake of realization of the benefits of the consumers provided by the Act 2019.
16. In pursuant to the petition of complaint it is clearly revealed that the complainants, in same manners, kept silent from the period of February 2018 to 20/10/2020 as it is understood that on 20/10/2020, the op no – 1 provided a draft copy of the deed of conveyance in respect of subject property. But we are astonished that there is no such clear explanation in the petition of complaint regarding long silence during said period of time
17. We think that there was an ample opportunity at the behest of the complainants to take or initiate legal action against the ops but they failed. Mere correspondences or representations between the parties do not always constitute the continuous or repeated cause of action. Though the ld counsel appearing for the complainants submitted some rulings in support of his case but we fail to accept the contentions as made by him. Rather we, at the present situation, safely rely upon the decision ie State of Tripura & others vs Arabinda Chakraborty and others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 460 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that “in our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation, simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided......................”

                                                                         AND

          In another case ie Nensi Shah vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd reported at III (2006) CPJ 414 NC, wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held that “no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.”

18. For every time, the cited case laws cannot be befitted and in this respect it should be remembered that the each and every case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and accordingly the cause of action will be deemed to have arisen on the very particular date when the complainant discovers the harm or injury caused due to act done by the opposite party/parties. Under such situation, without any further delay it should be very practical at the behest of the complainant/complainants to rush to the Commission forthwith for getting proper relief/reliefs otherwise the main object of the provision under section 69 of the Act 2019 will be frustrated. The cause of action cannot be continued for a long time even for life time of the complainant. Though we pay our sympathy upon the complainants but our hands are tied and as such we cannot go beyond the aforesaid provision of law.
19. From the forgoing discussions it is settled that there is a delay of about 7 years in filing the instant consumer case and accordingly we are constrained to dismiss the instant consumer case  being barred by limitation at the admission stage without any order as to costs.
20. Accordingly, the instant consumer case being no. CC/33/2023  stands disposed of.
21. Note accordingly.