STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

Piara Singh Rana, aged 71 years s/o Sh.Hussan Singh r/o H.No.3863, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh presently residing at H.No.2334, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh

                                                                                      … Appellant

V E R S U S

 Ram Kumar Aggarwal, Managing Director, Shivalik Farms Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh

Present Address:

H.No.1084, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.                                                                                                                                 ..... Respondent

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 17.08.2023 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.547/2019.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.P.C.Kondal, Advocate for the appellant alongwith

                         Sh.Piara Singh Rana, Advocate, appellant in person.

                         Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.

 PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the complaint being barred by limitation. 

2.         Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the  complainant that he had purchased a plot measuring 4500 sq. ft. bearing No.214 named Mini Farm-cum-Picnic Spot in the revenue limits of Village Rehawar (Rahaur), Sub Tehsil Barwala, District Panchkula. The complainant made full and final payment of the plot on 8.11.1993. The Opposite Party also received Rs.3250/- from the complainant on account of registration fee of the sale deed.  When Opposite party failed to execute and register the sale deed till 30.7.98, the complainant filed a consumer complaint  before the District Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh which was disposed of vide order 21.7.1998 directing the Opposite Party to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in terms of the Agreement of sale dated 11.7.1990. Accordingly the Opposite Party got executed sale deed on  30.07.1998 for a total consideration of Rs.18000/-.  It was alleged that subsequently the OP disappeared and could not be traced despite making efforts. It was averred in the complaint that later on, it came to the notice through news cutting ((Annexure C-7) that the OP and his wife have been arrested and convicted in some other case by the Hon'ble State Commission. Thereafter, the complainant along with other plot holders constituted a society and got it registered on 13.01.2017 at Chandigarh (Annexure C-8). The Complainant and other plot holders then approached Naib Tehsildar Barwala for demarcation of their plots. The Halqa Kanungo  then sent notices to the Opposite Party and the complainant to remain present at the time of demarcation but the Opposite Party failed to turn up. The demarcation of  the plots was conducted by Halqa Kanugo and Patwari from 30.6.2018 to 8.7.2018.   It was alleged that after scrutinizing the copy of survey map, it came to light that the plot of the complainant bearing Khasra No.42/28 fell in the bed of River Tangri and was unfit for the purpose it had been purchased. The complainant then approached the SSP, UT, Chandigarh for registration of the FIR against the OP.  The Society of the complainant also approached the Hon'ble High Court for registration of the FIR against the OP  by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative legal remedy.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant  filed a consumer complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission  seeking directions either to provide facilities and to earmark the plots as per the layout plan shown to the complainant at the time of negotiations for sale as promised in the advertisement dated 08.06.1990 and to allot plot at some other place away from the river and its banks, or refund the amount paid as cost of the plot alongwith interest besides compensation of Rs.10.00 Lakhs for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.

3.                  Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite Party/respondent appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and contested the complaint. In its written reply, it was stated that the  complainant had  purchased 1 Kanal land i.e. 20/94 part of land bearing Khasra No.42/28, raqba 4 Kanals 14 Marlas and was co-sharer in the land vide sale deed dated 30.07.1998 and the land sold to the complainant was not a colony but an agricultural land which is clearly mentioned in the sale deed in question. It was  stated that since the sale deed qua the land has already been executed in favour of the complainant and as such the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer.  It was further stated that in the year 2003, the OP shifted its office from SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh to SCO No.110-111, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh and the relevant information of shifting the registered office of the company was given to the Registrar of the Companies in accordance with law.  It was further  stated that the OP was not responsible for any geographical changes if any in the land, purchased by the complainant. The remaining allegations were denied. By pleading   that  there was no deficiency in service on their part,  a prayer was made for  dismissal of the complaint.

4.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the complaint , being barred by limitation, as stated in the opening para of this order. 

5.                Aggrieved against the   aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant  for  setting aside the  impugned order.    

6.                  We have heard  Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 7.            In fact, after filing reply to  the complaint by the opposite party/respondent,  the complainant had also filed an application dated 19.06.2019 under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)    seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint on the ground that the delay had  occurred because the OP closed its office at SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh and its Directors also disappeared and were not traceable.  The Opposite Party contested the application by stating that  its office situated at SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh was very much working  upto 2003. However in the year 2003,  its office was shifted from SCO No.363-364, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh to SCO No.110-111, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh and the relevant information of shifting the registered office of the company was given to the Registrar of the Companies in accordance with law.   The Ld. District Commission for want of any reasonable explanation given by the respondent for delay of 20 years, dismissed the application as well as complaint, being barred by limitation.

8.                In appeal, the appellant has urged that the Ld.District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the Opposite Party was fully responsible to inform about the shifting of its registered office to its members who had purchased the plots from it. However, the appellant and other allottees were regularly making efforts to trace the whereabouts of the respondent by visiting its office time and again but could not find its whereabouts. The Ld. District Commission also did not consider  that the respondent has failed to provide the facilities as mentioned in the advertisement even passing more than 24 years of the allotment of plots and failed to get demarcation of the plots and did not hand over physical possession. The other ground raised that the subject matter of the dispute is about incomplete project which was to be developed by the respondent as per the advertisement dated 8.6.1990 but it failed to complete the same till date rather misappropriated the hard earned money of the appellant and other allottees.  

9.                It is an admitted fact that the advertisement in the Tribune was given on 8.6.1990. On depositing Rs.4500/- the appellant was issued sale-cum-allotment letter on 11.7.1990. The appellant made full and final payment on 8.11.1993. When sale deed was not got registered, the appellant filed a consumer complaint and on directions issued by the then Ld. District Forum, respondent got executed sale deed on 30.7.1998. After elapsing a long period, the complainant filed CRM-M-25764-2019 before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court against the SSP, U.T. Chandigarh and others, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.5.2019. Then the appellant preferred a consumer complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission on 17.6.2019. After execution of sale deed on 30.07.1998, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to raise his claim whatsoever, if he had any grouse against the opposite party/respondent. He kept mum for such a long time. The complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The Ld. District Commission while dismissing the application for condonation of delay as well as complaint by holding  the same barred by limitation rightly observed that each day’s delay is required to be explained whereas the appellant failed to furnish any cogent and convincing explanation of such a long delay which could not be condoned. Section-24-A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(Now Section 69 of the CPA,2019) reads as under ;

(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.

10.              In view of the above, we find that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of   evidence and law on the point and does not suffer from illegality and perversity warranting any interference of this Commission.                

11.                  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

12.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.