| Before the 4th Addl District consumer forum, 1st Floor, B.M.T.C, B-Block, T.T.M.C, Building, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bengaluru - 560027 | | S.L.Patil, President |
|
| Complaint Case No. CC/48/2023 | | ( Date of Filing : 09 Feb 2023 ) |
| | | | 1. Mr. Muppala Narasa Raju, | | S/o M. Rama Raju, Aged about 70 years, R/at. No.28 (New No.39), Koundinya Apartments, 3rd Temple Road, 15th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560003. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Sri. Subramanya Raju, Managing Director, M/s Prasiddhi Properties Pvt Ltd., | | R/Office at: No.2535, 1st Floor, 9th A Cross, 13th Main, E Block, Sahakara Nagar, Bangalore-560092. | | 2. Sri. B. Srinivas, Director, M/s Prasiddhi Properties Pvt Ltd., | | R/Office at: No.2535, 1st Floor, 9th A Cross, 13th Main, E Block, Sahakara Nagar, Bangalore-560092. | | 3. Bangalore International Airport Planning Authority, BIAAPA | | No.333/1, 1st Floor, V.J. Complex, Shanti Nagar, Sulibele Road, Devanahalli Town, Bangalore Rural Dist-562110. Rep. by its Member Secretary. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | ORDERS ON MAINTAINAABILITY ON THE ADMISSION ON POINT OF LIMITATION - Heard the arguments of the complainant. Perused entire complaint averments. On the maintainability of the complaint the Commission opined as follows.
- On perusal of the complaint allegations as against the OP, it is observed that when the complainant purchased plot and took possession of the same by executing registered sale deed on 23.02.2006. It is alleged that when the complainant tried to fence the plot in the year 2019 the neighbouring land owner objected the same by asking i.e. his piece of land upon which the complainant got measured his plot by the authority. The complainant came to be note that there is a shortage of plot to the extent of 3,222 Sq.ft. in purchased plot by the OP.
- In view of the above the commission is opined that by applying the principles of CAVEAT EMPTOR speaks with respect of the duty casted on the buyer. The principle says BUYER BEWARE. In this complaint the complainant admittedly being in the possession of the plot since the year 2006. The complainant kept hold the plot without verifying the measurement of the plot for a long period of 13 years by applying the principle CAVEAT EMPTOR. The complainant loses his statutory right to sue under the provisions of C.P.Act, 2019. Section 69 of C.P.Act, 2019 stipulates 02 years of limitation period to file any complaint from the date of accrual of cause of action. It is apparent from the face of the records that there is delay of 13 long years to initiate action. The negligence and carelessness on the part of the complainant is apparent from the face of the record and thereby the principle of VIGILANTIBUS NON-DORMIENTBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. The Legal Maxim of Law says in Latin means. The law sustained only those who are vigilant not those who sleep over their rights. By applying Legal Maxim and its principle, the conduct of complainant is apparent from the events that even though the property got registered in 2006. The defect are noticed of shortage of plot measuring 3,222 sq.ft is only came to the knowledge of the complainant in the year 2019-20 as per complainant’s pleadings. This fact itself shows that the complainant is not vigilant over his rights for all the 13 long years. The law helps those who are vigilant, here by conduct of the complainant is observed that the complainant loses his right to initiate action by filing complaint before this commission well within 02 years of limitation period. This complaint came to be filed after the lapse of limitation period. As such the complaint is liable to be rejected for the reasons that the present complaint is severely barred by limitation. In that event the complaint is rejected on the threshold for being barred by limitation under the provisions of section 69 of C.P.Act,2019.
ORDER Complaint is rejected as barred by maintainable. (RAMACHANDRA M.S.) PRESIDENT (NANDINI H KUMBHAR) (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA) MEMBER MEMBER | |
