This appeal is filed against the order of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC/94/2010 in which complaint of the present respondents has been allowed.
2. The case of the Complainants is that they have purchased a flat from the Appellant /OP and were put in possession of the same in 1999. But, despite payment of full agreed price and repeated reminders, the OP did not register the sale deed in their favour, until the filing the complaint on 13.12.2010. In this background the State Commission, in its order of 14.2.2013, has directed the appellant/OP to execute and register the deed of conveyance within 45 days. The Commission has also awarded compensation of Rs.3 lakhs.
3. De hors the claim of the complainants, the plea of the Appellant /OP before the State Commission was that-
“the opp. Party completed the flat and issued possession letter on 21.04.99 and requested the opp. Party for registration of the documents but the petitioner was not interested to register the documents for the purpose of squeezing money from the Opp. Party. It is submitted that the Opp. Party requested the petitioner for making arrangement for registration and paying cost of registration including stamp duty and other requires so that the Opp. Party can execute the documents before the Calcutta Registration office but the petitioner did not pay any heed to it nor given any response.” The State Commission did not accept this plea and held that- “There is practically no tangible answer on the part of the OP as to what caused such abnormal delay in execution and registration of the deed in question, which, in our opinion, tantamounts to deficiency in service”
4. We have carefully perused the records of the appeal and heard Mr. Dipak Kumar Jena, Advocate on behalf of the appellant.
5. As is evident from the record, the flat had not been registered in the name of the Complainants for almost 10 years from the date of possession till 13.12.2012, when the jurisdiction of the State Commission was invoked. The observation of the State Commission that there was no answer on the part of the OP as to what caused this abnormal delay in execution of the deed of conveyance was put to the appellant counsel. Learned counsel admitted that no documentary evidence in this behalf had been placed before the State Commission. Only oral submissions had been made to the effect that the efforts made by the Appellant/OP to get the sale deed registered were frustrated by non-cooperation of the respondent/Complainant. It is therefore, clear that no evidence of any value was adduced before the State Commission in support this contention.
6. The appeal petition, as well as the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, have both laid considerable stress on the fact that the consumer complaint was filed nearly 10 years after the admitted date of possession of the flat. It is argued that if the cause of action arose on 21.4.1999, i.e. the date of possession, the complaint would become inadmissible on the ground of delay. On this point, the case of the Complaints, as seen from para 13 of the complaint before the State Commission was that:-
“That the cause of action of this case arose on 21.04.1999 being the date of giving possession of the flat in question by the opposite party and further on 16.05.2008 being the date of issuance of first legal notice through S.G. Muskara and then on 17,09,2010 being the date of last legal notice through Barun Prasad, advocate and denial to execute the deed of conveyance of the flat by the opposite party the same is continuing till date.”
The only response to this in the pleadings of the appellant/OP before the State Commission was a bland denial that the cause of action arose on 21.4.1999 and that it arose again on subsequent dates of legal notices.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to rely upon the decision in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. B.K., Sood, (2006) 1 SCC 164. In this matter,the complaint before the State Commission was filed 10 years after taking possession of the bhattis and 8 years after the cause for alleged damage had commenced. But, there was not even a prayer to condone the delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the National Commission had proceeded on an incorrect factual basis that the bhattis had been removed during the pendency of the appeal before it. This finding was held to be contrary to the records as the offending bhattis had already been removed, three years before the consumer complaint was filed.
8. On comparison, facts of the present case are found to be very different. The case of the Complainants, as already observed, was that the cause of action began with the possession of the flat in 1999 and continued till the filing of the complaint, due to non-registration of the conveyance deed for the same. Therefore, in my view the decision relied upon by the appellant will not come to his rescue. Moreover, the plea of continuing cause of action was not challenged before the State Commission.
9. In Lata Construction and others Vs. Dr.Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and another, (2000) 1 SCC 586, the question of ‘continuing cause of action’ arose directly for consideration before the Supreme Court of India. The case of the Complainant was that under a written agreement of 27.1.1987 the builder-developer had promised to provide a flat but had failed to do so. This agreement contemplated that Lata Construction would construct and hand over a flat on the ground floor. This was not done. However, the two sides entered into a fresh agreement on 23.2.1991 in which the builder agreed to pay the Complainant Rs.9.51 lakhs in lieu of the flat. Hon’ble Suprme Court held that:-
“4. A perusal of the agreement dated 23-2-1991 would show that it was specifically stipulated therein that the rights under the agreement dated 27-1-1987 would remain unaffected. It was for this reason that in the claim petition filed before the Commission, it was clearly mentioned that their rights under the agreement dated 27-1-1987 as also those under the agreement dated 23-2-1991 may be enforced. It was also specifically mentioned in the second agreement that the first agreement of 1987 would be treated as terminated only on fully payment of the stipulated amount of Rs.9,51,000 to the respondents. Since the rights under the agreement of 1987 had not been given up and the appellants were constantly under an obligation to provide a flat to the respondents and deliver possession thereof to them, the Commission rightly treated “cause of action” to be a “continuing cause of action” and came to the right conclusion that the claim was not beyond time.”
10. The law laid down above on continuing cause if action, applies equally to the present case. The sale of the flat to the respondent/ complainant, receipt of the agreed price by the vendor/appellant and physical delivery of the flat by the vendor/OP to the purchaser/Complainant, are facts established on the record. While the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent was responsible for the delay, non execution of the conveyance deed remains an admitted fact. More than anyone else, the appellant, being a construction company, should know that sale of a flat is completed with registration of the sale deed and not with mere transfer of physical possession. Clearly, the cause of action, which began with delivery of physical possession, continues till the deed of conveyance is registered. Therefore, the question of limitation does not arise.
11. In the above background, I find no substance in the grounds of appeal against the impugned order. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No CC/94/2010 is confirmed. No orders as to costs. | 
