Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1488/2018

RAJ KISHORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPERTECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ABRAHAM MATHEWS

07 Dec 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :07.12.2018

Date of Decision : 18.12.2018

COMPLAINT NO.1488/2018

In the matter of:

 

                                                              

Ms. Raj Kishore,

C-569, Sarita Vihar,

New Delhi.                                                          …..Complainant

 

•  

 

Supertech Ltd,

Through its managing Director,

1114, 11^th Floor, Hemkunt Chamber,

89, Nehru Place,

New Delhi-110019.                                          ….Opposite Party

                                                                                   

•  

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Short ground to the limitation the case  of the complainant is that he alongwith her daughter Ms. Maneesha Kishore Dubey booked flat no. 2012 A in Block-LM, of project “Eco City” at GH03, Sector-137, Noida, UP. Grievance is that  OP had not received necessary statutory approvals on the date of sale. He paid advance of Rs.3 ½ lakhs. He applied for loan with HDFC Bank who informed her that Tower had not been accorded sanction by statutory authorities. He confirmed the same through RTI from New Okhla Industrial development Authority, vide reply dated 22.12.15. He wrote a  mail on 28.08.16 asking for refund of the booking amount alongwith interest @18% p.a.. Hence this complaint for refund, Rs.1 lakh is compensation and cost of litigation.
2. First of all I may mention that Ms. Maneesha, daughter of the complainant who is a joint allottee has not been made party in the complaint. She is a necessary party. In her absence the complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties.
3. Secondly the complainant came to know about non approval of the Tower through email dated 14.09.15 sent by HDFC Bank and through reply dated 22.12.15 under RTI. Limitation for filing a consumer complaint is two years. The complaint filed on 22.11.18 is barred by limitation.
4. Counsel for the complainant drew my attention towards Annexure-11 at page 34 to show that OP had been promising to resolve the matter. This amounts to acknowledgement and bring the case within limitation. I am unable to appreciate the arguments. For acknowledgement there has to be admission of Jural Relationship (under Section 18 Limitation Act of  debtor and creditor between  the parties). I do not find such admission in the mail referred by the counsel for complainant. Simply saying OP was tried to resolve the issue does not mean anything. What was the issue and what efforts was being made is not know.
5. It was held in RP no.26/12 titled as Subastian Md vs. N.J. Devadas decided by National Commission on 13.07.12 and OP no.55/01 titled as Hansa Wire Products (P) Ltd. vs. Union India Insurance Company decided on 18.11.11 that representations do not extend the limitation.
6. In Jansata Sehkari Awas Samiti I (2016) CPJ 190  National Commission held that notice sent by complainant does not give rise to cause of action and does not extend the limitation.
7. In Kandi Mala Vs. National Commission Company (2009) 7 STC 768 it was held that correspondence between the parties does not extend limitation.
8. The complaint is dismissed in limine.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                                                                              (O.P. GUPTA)                                                                                                                                                                                        MEMBER (JUDICIAL)