IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

ORDER ON ADMISSION OF COMPLAINT

1. This complaint is filed by Mr. N. Arun Kumar s/o. Sri Nadan.J, resident of Gummanakolli Village, Kushalnagar Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District against the opponent Shahir.M.M s/o. P.M. Moidu, resident of Gummanakolli Village to pass an order directing the opponent to provide all basic amenities in the layout formed by him such as road, electricity by way of erecting transformer, water connection, sewage and drainage.  Further direct the opponent to pay compensation of Rs.2,32,333/- due to his latches and cost of Rs.50,000/-.

2. The opponent is the owner of land Sy.No.83/2 situated at Gummanakolli Village and later on he has formed layout by converting the land in to non-agricultural purpose.  The complainant has purchased site No.9 to an extent of 0.5 acres in the said layout through  registered sale deed dated 11/06/2015 believing the promise made by opponent that he would provide all basic amenities in the layout immediately.  The complainant has constructed a house in the site by obtaining license from the Grama Panchayath on 05/11/2015 believing the words of opponent that he would provide the basic facilities before the house warming ceremony.  The opponent did not stick up to his words even after house warming ceremony of the complainant and as on today he has not provided basic amenities in the layout like road electricity, water connection, sewage and drainage.  There after the complainant has got issued legal notice dated 11/07/2017 to the opponent to provide the basic amenities and inspite of the service of notice he did not comply.  Hence, this complaint.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the cause of action has arisen to file this complaint on the date of issue of legal notice dated 11/07/2017. The complainant produced order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri, Kodagu District on 21/10/2011 permitting to convert the land Sy.No.83/1, measuring 0.85 acres for non agricultural purpose. That one of the condition is that the owner shall construct a residential house within 2 years from the date of conversion order dated 21/10/2011.  The complainant produced registered sale deed dated 11/06/2015 executed by the opponent in respect of site no.9 measuring 203.65 square meter (0.5 cents) from the opponent.  The next document is dated 05/11/2015 issued by the PDO, Grama Panchayath, Mullusoge to the complainant to construct residential house within six months from the date of issue of license.  The last document is office copy of legal notice dated 10/07/2017 issued to the opponent to provide basic amenities.

5. The complainant has purchased site under registered sale deed dated 11/06/2015 from the opponent though the later has not provided basic amenities inspite of the conversion order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri, Kodagu District on 21/10/2011.  The learned counsel for the complainant on the point of limitation brought to the Forum notice the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. the civil appeal No.3883/2007[1][2](2009) 5 SCC 121[3][4](2009) 7 SCC 768] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the findings recorded by the National Commission award a compensation to the opponent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.  Facts of the case are that the complainant Hindustan Safety  Glass Works Ltd. has taken two policies with the opponent insurance company on 29/08/1990 for a period of one year which were renewed for another year for an amount of Rs.4.9 lakhs to cover the risk on office building, residential quarters, canteen etc. in Calcutta.  That on 06/08/1992 there was heavy incessant rain in Calcutta resulting in heavy accumulation of rain water inside and around factory of the insured resulting considerable damage of raw material, stocks and goods, furniture etc.  That on 7^th and 8^th  August, 1992 claimed a total amount of Rs.52,00,000/-. The opponent the insurance company has appointed its Surveyor  on 24/09/1992 and Surveyor submitted its report on 11/09/1993 indicating a loss of Rs.24,00,000/-.  Again the insurance company has appointed second surveyor and he gave report on 23/11/1994 assigning loss to the extent of Rs.26,00,000/-.  The insurance company has assessed damage on 10/02/1995 for a sum of Rs.24,00,000/-.  Then in the year 1996 the complainant has filed complaint before the National Commission.  The National Commission has allowed the complaint rejecting the contention of insurance company that claim is not bared by limitation.  The opponent National Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 22/05/2001 which is about 5 years after the complaint was filed with the National Commission.  The Supreme Court upheld the decision of National Commission that the claim of complainant is not barred by limitation since the insurance company has appointed surveyor twice and the 2^nd surveyor submitted report on 23/11/1994.  In paragraph no.18 of the judgment Supreme Court held that the Consumer Protection Act is beneficent legislation and the provision of Limitation Act  cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is  instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer’s claim.  The Apex Court further observed that on the next day of incident the insured/ complainant lodged a claim with the National Insurance.

6. The facts of the above citation are not applicable to the case on hand since the complainant though purchased site from the opponent on 11/06/2015 did not take any action against the opponent by issuing notice to provide basic amenities.  The complainant without basic amenities in the site has purchased it in the month of June, 2015 and thereafter by obtaining license within six months from the date of purchase has constructed residential house and since then he has been residing. Two years after registration of the sale deed for the first time on 10/07/2017 the complainant has got issued notice to the opponent to provide basic amenities.  The complainant has committed mistake by purchasing site without basic amenities in the layout though it is the duty of the opponent to form layout by providing all basic amenities within two years from the date of conversion order issued by Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu  District, Madikeri on 21/10/2011.  The opponent without providing basic amenities has sold the site in favour of the complainant on 11/06/2015.  The complainant has slept over his rights for more than two years from the date of registration and for the first time he has got issued notice dated 10/07/2017 to provide basic amenities.  The date on which notice issued by the complainant on 10/07/2017 two years limitation period was expired from the date of purchase of site.  Therefore, the complaint is hopelessly barbed by time as issuing notice is  not cause of action to the complainant but the date of purchase of site i.e. on 11/06/2015 is cause of action to file the complaint.  For the above reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Mr. N. Arun Kumar s/o. Nadan.J fails hence, it is dismissed on the ground of limitation.

No order has to cost.

2. Furnish copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 19^th day of JANUARY, 2019)

                                                      (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                          PRESIDENT 

                                                     (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                           MEMBER