Haryana

StateCommission

A/845/2019

HEMANT RAI BHATIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRS REAL ESTATE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KARTAR SINGH

01 Oct 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.845 of 2019

                   Date of Institution:25.09.2019

          Date of Decision:01.10.2019

 

Hemant Rai Bhatia S/o Shri Lagdish Rai Bhatia, R/o H.No.5D/9, NIT Faridabad, District Faridabad.

…Appellant

Versus

 

1. SRS Real Estate Ltd., through its Directors, SRS Tower, 3^rd Floor, Near Mewla Maharaj Pur Station, Mewla Maharajpur, GT road, Faridabad, Haryana.

 

2. DTCP, District Palwal.

 

3. STP, District Faridabad.

…Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri  Kartar Singh counsel for the appellant.

O R D E R

Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member:

 

          There is a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. The delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned, in the interest of justice.

2.      Complainant-Hemant Raj has filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for challenging the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad whereby complaint filed by him stood dismissed being barred by limitation.

3.      According to the complainant,  as per version of the complainant, he booked a flat with opposite party No.1 in  SRS Affordable Group Housing, Sector-6 Palwal. He also made  huge payments on account of consideration thereof.  An allotment letter  for residential flat No.1104, Floor No.11, tower No.A, Block No.4  in SRS Affordable Group Housing Project At Sector-6, Palwal was duly issued by the OP No.1. It is alleged that lateron opposite party No.1 became dishonest and without assigning any notice issued a letter dated 20.02.2013 allotting another flat No.002, ground floor, tower No.C, Block No.4 to the complainant and asked him to pay extra sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and service tax being ground floor flat.  Complainant was not interested in the said ground floor flat, therefore, issued legal notice to the OP No.1, but, all in vain.

4.      Opposite party No.1 contested the complaint and refuting the allegations of complainant and denied allegation  of arbitrarily change of allotment from flat No.1104 in Tower A on 11^th Floor to flat No.2 in Tower C on ground floor by the opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 20.02.2013.  Preliminary objections was raised that instant complaint was filed in June 2017 i.e. after a delay of 2 years approximately.  It was informed by opposite party No.1 to the complainant that the land on which the “Affordable Group Housing Project” was being in process of construction had been changed due to certain unavoidable reasons and the opposite party No.1 had obtained the new license from DTCP and duly get the revised Map  for the changed land.  It was also informed to the complainant that through their letter dated 19.01.2013 that opposite party was in process of re-alloting  flat Nos. by draw of lots again to the allotee, who were already allotted flats on floors  higher than the 7th floor in the earlier draw.

5.      Similarly, oppsoite parties No.2 and 3 put in appearance through their counsel and refuted the claim of complainant and submitted that complaint is not maintainable against opposite parties No.2 and 3 as complainant was not a consumer as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.  No agreement was whatsoever type had been executed by the complainant with the opposite parties No.2 and 3.  Dismisal of the complaint was prayed for.

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the material available on the record, learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the complaint deserves dismissal being barred by limitation as the same was required to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action, which is arose in the year 2013.  Accordingly prayer has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant for accepting the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant contended that complainant had served legal notice to the opposite party No.1 on 22.04.2016, but,  legal notice was not replied by opposite party No.1.  Earlier to that complainant approached opposite party particularly to respondent No.1 time and again, but, no satisfactory reply was given.  According to him, cause of action arose on 22.04.2016 and the present complaint was filed on  18.04.2017 within the period of limitation of 2 years. 

8.      Having heard learned counsel for the complainant-appellant and on going through the impugned order, this Commission finds that the claim of complainant was badly time barred. It is rightly observed by learned District Forum that as per Section 24 A of the Act, the period of  limitation  to admit the complaint is within two years from the date on which the cause of action arisen. In the instant complaint, cause of action arose on 20.02.2013, when an alternative flat No.2 on ground floor of Tower-C was allotted to the complainant by the opposite party No.1. The instant complaint has been filed on  18.04.2017 after lapse of four years and two months from the cause of action.

9.      Although, it is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that cause of action arose from the date of issuing the legal notice dated 22.04.2016, but this contention is not tenable as learned counsel for complainant-appellant has failed to show any material on the record to prove that complainant had approached respondent/opposite party No.1 time and again after alternative allotment of the flat. Thus, it can be safely concluded that in the complaint under appeal is badly time barred.  We find no illegality or fault in the finding given by the learned District Forum, whereby complaint stood dismissed being hopelessly barred by limitation. The present appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed.

 

1st  October, 2019              Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                                  Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)