ORDER

21.11.2024

MS. NIPUR  CHANDNA, MEMBER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer of refund of Rs. 13,96,800/- along with interest @18/% p.a from the date of deposit till the date of realization to the complainant. Beside this complainant has prayed to impose penalty for sum of Rs. 10 Lakh for not completing the said project within stipulated period, direct the OP to pay sum of Rs. 5 Lakh on account of compensation as well as for litigation expenses.
2. In brief the facts of the complaint are that being influence by the lucrative project of the OP complainant booked plot in the said project for a total sale consideration of Rs. 53,20,000/-. Complainant paid Rs. 4 Lakh on 01.12.2012 with the application form and thereafter paid further amount to the OP on 24.12.2012 and 12.11.2013. OP duped the complainant and took its money on the terms and assurance that the possession of the unit would be given by 31.12.2015. It is stated that complainant paid Rs. 13,96,800/-   from 01.12.2012 to 12.11.2013 and photocopy of the receipts have been filed. It is further stated that OP will complete the construction work of the residential township and handed over the developed unit on or before 31.12.2015. It is further alleged that OP has violated the agreed terms and conditions between the parties as such  the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the money deposited with OP, hence, this complaint.
3. The present complaint case is on admission stage. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Ms. Sanjana Manchanda on the issue of admissibility of the present complaint and have perused the record.
4. It is argued on behalf of complainant that since the OP has failed to handover the possession of the plot in question that cause of action is continuing one and as such the present complaint is well within limitation.  In support of his contention the complainant has placed on record citation of Hon’ble NCDRC title as “Hare Ram Ray and Ors vs. Adel Landmark Ltd. reported as I (2024) CPJ 22(NC) wherein Hon’ble NCDRC held that non offering of the possession after receiving sale consideration of substantial, amounts to continuing cause of action. The present case is distinguishable one as the complainant has paid only Rs. 13,96,800/- out of the total sale consideration amount of Rs. 53,20,000/-, hence, the judgment is not applicable in the present complaint case.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the refund claim of the complainant is not within the limitation  provided by section 69 of the CP Act, 2019, as the complainant had paid the last payment to the OP on 12.11.2013, hence, the first cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 12.11.2013. As alleged in the complaint the OP had to offer the possession to the complainant on 31.12.2015, hence, we are of the opinion that the substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 31.12.2015. The complainant ought to have file the present complaint within two years of the accrual of cause of action i.e. 31.12.2017. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 26.07.2024 i.e. after the delay of 06 years and 06 months. The present complaint is therefore barred by limitation, hence, dismissed.

            File be consigned to record room.

6.         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.

Announced in open Commission on   21.11.2024.

Sanjay Kumar                                           Nipur Chandna                               

                 President                                                  Member