ORDER

03.07.2024

SH. RAJESH, MEMBER

1. Present complainant has been filed by complainant alleging deficiency in services against OP and seeking a direction to OP to refund a sum of Rs. 35,32,600/- on account of consideration paid to OP for purchasing plot with interest, cost and compensation.
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that the in the year 2005 the officials of the OP represented to the complainant that they are coming up with a residential project namely SBL City in sector 2 Sonipal Hay7ana which will be embedded with world class infrastructure and amenities with world class infrastructure and amenities. The complainant booked eight plots as per following details.

3. It is stated that as per the terms and conditions of booking the allotment of plots was to be made within a period of 12 months from the date of application and in case of failure of the OP in allotting the plots to the complainant within the stipulated period then OP will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. to complainant from the date of payment registration deposit.
4. It is stated that the complainant was required to make further payments only after allotment of plots were made by the OP in favour of the complainant.  
5. It is stated that the complainant visited the office of the OP numerous times between 2008 to 2014 in order to know the status of the project, but every time it was told to the complainant that very soon complainant will be allotted plots but till date the OP has failed to allot the plots to the complainant.
6. It is stated that the in the year 2016 the MD of the OP was arrested on the complaints of several persons and was in custody till 2016. When MD was released on bail the complainant again visited the office of the OP to know the status of the project. He was told that license of the project would be obtained soon and the project would be launched soon.
7. It is stated that the complainant had waited for almost 14 years for the allotment of plots but nothing has been done by the OP for the allotment of plots.
8. It is stated that the in January 2020 the complainant again visited the office of the OP in order to know about the status of the project. The complainant met with the MD of OP but didn’t get any satisfactory reply from him.
9. It is stated that OP has no land in Sonipat, therefore, does not have any intention to allot plots to the complainant in Sonipat as promised.
10. It is therefore complainant is before us seeking a direction to OP to refund a sum of Rs. 35,32,600/- paid to OP on account of booking amount of eight plots with interest, cost and compensation.
11. At the outset we are supposed to decide whether complainant who has booked eight plots with OP is a consumer as defined under C.P. Act 2019 and whether the present complaint is barred by limitation.
12.  Complainant has booked eight plots of different dimensions with OP. Complainant has not clarified whether eight plots were purchased by him for his personal residential use or for further sale. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that complainant has purchased flats for resale or profit making purpose or for commercial purpose. Therefore complainant is not a consumer as defined under C.P. Act, 2019.  
13. Let us now peruse the relevant provisions of C.P. Act, 2019 dealing with the limitation same is reproduced as under.

69 Limitation period:—

1.  The District Forum, 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 Forum, 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 National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

14. Let us peruse the principles of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble NCDRC. In State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP)=JT 2009 (4) SC 191, it was held as under: 

It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is premptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.

15. In Ramratan M. Shriwas vs Jayant H. Thakkar decided on 2^nd August, 2011 Revision Petition NO. 640 of 2006 Hon’ble NCDRC held as follows:- 

We agree with the view taken by the fora below. It is well established by catena of judicial pronouncements that once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between the parties. The provision regarding limitation period contained in section 24A being of mandatory nature, the fora below was duty bound to determine whether the complaint is within the limitation period and since on consideration of the material placed before them, they found that the complaint was barred by limitation and sufficient cause had not been made out to condone the delay in question, no fault could be found with the impugned orders.

16. Now applying the above discussed provisions of law and Principles laid down in the present case. As per facts admitted facts by the complainant that the complainant made several written representations to OP however same will be of no help to complainant since “once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between the parties” ( Supra Ramaratan).
17. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission nor the National Commission shall admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The term "cause of action" is of wide import and has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. It refers to all circumstances or bundle of facts which if proved or admitted entitles the plaintiff (complainant) to the relief prayed for. In the context of limitation with reference to booking of plot with builder, the date of cause of action may refer to the date on which the builder is supposed to deliver the possession to OP from date of booking the plots.
18. Admittedly It is stated by the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of booking the allotment of plots was to be made within a period of 12 months from the date of application and in case of failure of the OP in allotting the plots to the complainant within the stipulated period then OP will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. to complainant from the date of payment registration deposit. The complainant booked first three plots on 21.01.2005 paying a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- for each plot. Therefore as per the version of the complainant he was supposed to be allotted plot on or before 21.01.2007 but without waiting for allotment he again booked two plots on 17.09.2008 paying a sum of Rs. 2,59,000/-and another on 22.09.2008 by paying a sum of 2,66,000/-. Instead of approaching the Courts when OP failed to allot the plots within two years the complainant was again booking plots with the OP showing full confidence in the OP that he would allot the plots to complainant. This conduct of the complainant shows that he was himself negligent by not approaching the courts.  
19. In view above discussion we are of considered opinion that substantial cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 21.01.2007 for first three plots booked on 21.01.2005 and again arose on 31.03.2007 for fourth plot booked on 31.03.2005 and again arose on 26.02.2008 for two plots booked 26.02.2006 again arose on 17.09.2010 for plot booked on 17.09.2008 and lastly on 22.09.2010 for plot booked on 22.09.2008. Present complaint was filed on 23.09.2020 with a delay of delay of ten years if calculated from last cause of action. No application for condonation of delay has been filed explaining huge delay of ten years, therefore, present complaint barred by limitation.  
20. From the above discussions, legal provisions and principles of law laid on the subject, since present complaint filed by complainant is barred by limitation u/s 69 of C.P. Act, 2019 and complainant is not a consumer as defined under C.P. Act 2019, therefore, present complaint is dismissed.

Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open Commission on 03.07.2024.

(SANJAY KUMAR)                                      (RAJESH )

PRESIDENT                                               MEMBER