The complainant has purchased two sites bearing No. 112 and 127 of Sy. No. 97 and 100 of Bhagyanagar village each measuring 30”X40” for a sum of Rs.80,000.00 on 30-04-2008 under a registered sale deed from the respondent.
2. In the complaint, the complainant has sought for following reliefs;
- Directing the respondent to pay tax and development charges to concerned authorities.
- Directing the respondent to obtain authorization from Urban Development Authority.
- Directing the respondent to provide basic amenities.
- To pay Rs.40,000.00 towards deficiency in service.
- To pay Rs.40,000.00 for physical and mental harassment.
- To pay Rs.10,000.00 as legal expenses.
3. Along with the complaint, the complainant has filed IA No.1 u/sec. 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 seeking condonation of 4 years in presenting the complaint. How he calculated the delay period of 4 years is not known because the complaint was filed on 03-11-2014 whereas the date of purchase was on 30-04-2008.
4. Notice of IA No.1 was issued to the opponent pending admission. The respondent appeared and filed detail objections citing some decisions.
5. We are dismissing the complaint for the following three distinct reasons.
- The sale deed under which the complainant purchased the sites do not contain any term under which the seller is obliged to provide any kind of service as defined u/sec. 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.
- The complaint do not disclose how much amount of tax and development charges has to be paid by the seller and to which authority and therefore vague. What type of authorization is required to be furnished to the complainant by the respondent from the Urban Development Authority not clear from the complaint. The counsel for the complainant could not substantiate before this Forum as to what type amenities are required to be provided by the seller and under which provision of law.
- In the affidavit supporting IA No.1, it is stated thus;
- ನಾನು ವಯೋವೃದ್ಧನಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಮತ್ತು ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಅರಿವು ಅಷ್ಟಕ್ಕೆ ಇರುವುದರಿಂದ ಮತ್ತು ಎದುರುದಾರನ ಒಂದು ಭರವಸೆಯನ್ನು ನಂಬಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣವನ್ನು ನಾಲ್ಕು ವರ್ಷ ವಿಳಂಬವಾಗಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವೆನು. ಮತ್ತು ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಪಿರ್ಯಾದಿಯನ್ನು ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ ಅಲಕ್ಷ್ಯತನದಿಂದ ವಿಳಂಬವಾಗಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.”
No prudent person will accept the above mentioned reasons as sufficient cause for not filing the complaint for last 6 ½ years from the date of purchasing the sites.
In the same application, the counsel also cited a decision wherein it is said to have been laid down thus – “When there is immovable property and the amenities promised by the opposite party were not provided, the National Commission held that it can be construed as continuing case action and it cannot be said to be barred by time.”
That was a case where amenities were promised by the opposite party were not provided. In the instant case, no such promise by the opposite party to provide amenities. As such said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case.
6. For the above reasons, IA No.1 is dismissed as no merits. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed at the stage of admission.
