ORDER

27.11.2024

Sh. RAJESH, MEMBER.

1. Vide this order we will be deciding the admissibility of present complaint.
2. Present complaint has been filed by complaints seeking a direction to the opposite party to deliver possession of the plot booked by her along with interest, cost and compensation.
3. It is stated that the complainant got a booking transferred from Sh. Virender Gupta for the plot in the project of the OP namely TDI CITI at Kundly Sonipal Haryana as future projects of Villa on payment of booking amount. Later on same was ratified by OP and an allotment letter dated 31.08.2008 in favour of complainant pertaining to Block /Plot No. L-374 area measuring 250 sq./ft.
4. It is stated that thereafter the complainant started making payment time to time to the OP and as per the terms and conditions the OP had to deliver the possession of the Villa within 24 months from the booking date for which the complainant approached OP on many occasions but all gone in vain.
5. It is stated by the complainant that OP failed to executive the agreement for the purchase of the said villa as whenever the complainant approached the office of OP and its directors and the employees always linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. 
6. It is stated by the complainant that as per the schedule which was issued by the OP the complainant always paid the amount towards the said villa as per payment schedule or demand raised by the OP.
7. It is stated by the complainant that at the time of making of payment in t0he year 2011 the OP started ignoring to receive the payment from the complainant on the one pretext or the other. That the complainant received one letter dated 28.05.2011 wherein the OP had stated that the provisional allotment was cancelled due to non making of payment of Rs. 4,00,000/-.
8. It is further stated that OP further issued one letter dated 26.08.2011 wherein the allotment of Villa No. L-374 (KRV-10051) was revoked and the complainant had made the payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of cheque. 
9. It is further stated that the complainant has been duly making payments to the OP accordingly to the payment plan and as to whenever the demand of the payment was issued by the OP.
10. It is further alleged that complainant till September 2011 the complainant made part payments according to the demand of the OP. That according to the terms and the next payment was to be made at the time of completion of Ground Floor which has not been completed till date due to this the complainant along with her husband uncountable times approached the office of the OP but all in vain.
11. It is stated that according to the terms and conditions decided between the complainant and the OP they have to give the possession of the said villa within 24 months to complainant from the date of booking in constructed position
12. It is alleged that OP breached the contract which was signed between the complainant and the OP in regards to construction and delivery of the possession of booked plot.  
13. It is further stated that the booking date of the said plot was 17.09.2005 that according to the terms and conditions with the construction the OP had to deliver the possession of the said plot / villa on or before 17.09.2007 but even the construction has not done by the OP.
14. It is further stated that even after the stipulated time period of 34 months got over the OP was issuing the demand of money for the development of the said plot. That the complainant made the part payment in OP on each and every demand that they had issued.
15. It is further stated that complainant had made a last payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 02.09.2011 and still the complainant have not received the constructed possession of the allotted Unit/Villas.
16. Therefore, complainant is before this commission seeking a direction to the opposite party to deliver the possession of the booked plot along with interest, cost and compensation
17. We have heard Sh. Aditya Kaushik counsel for complainant on the admission hearing and perused the record available with us.
18. A preliminary issue arises in the present complaint whether the present complaint has been filed within limitation period.   
19. In the present case, complainant has admitted that the booking date of the said plot was 17.09.2005 and according to the terms and conditions with the construction the OP had to deliver the possession of the said plot / villa on or before 17.09.2007 but even the construction has not done by the OP. It is also stated that complainant made last payment to OP 02.09.2011, therefore, the cause of action in the present case appears to have arisen firstly on 17.09.2007 and secondly on 02.09.2011. Therefore, the present complaint should have been filed on or before 01.09.2013 i.e. within two years of arising of cause of action, however, same has been actually filed on 22.08.2024 with a delay of 10 years, 11 months, 21 days.

20. Before dealing with the issue in hand let us peruse the relevant provisions of C.P. Act, 2019 dealing with the limitation same is reproduced as under.

Section 69 Limitation:—

(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

21. In State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP)=JT 2009 (4) SC 191, it was held as under: 

It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is premptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24A (Corresponding Section 69 of C.P. Act, 2019)  is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A (Corresponding Section 69 of C.P. Act, 2019)  and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.

22. Section 69 of C.P. Act, 2019 provides that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission nor the National Commission shall admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The term "cause of action" is of wide import and has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. It refers to all circumstances or bundle of facts which if proved or admitted entitles the plaintiff (complainant) to the relief prayed for. In the context of limitation with reference to booking of plot the cause of action may refer to the date on which builder promised to deliver the possession.
23. Now applying the above discussed provisions of law and Principles laid down in the present case. As per admitted facts by the complainant the cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the OP finally arose on 02.09.2011. The present complaint is admittedly filed on 22.08.2024. However present complaint should have been filed on or before i.e. within a period of two years from the date when cause of action finally arose which is 02.09.2011 in the present case as stated above. Though thereafter the complainant spent considerable time in communicating and following up with the OP, however, same will be of no help to complainant since once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by subsequent events unconnected with cause of action against allegedly defaulting party.
24. On the basis of above statutory position, judicial pronouncements observations and discussions we find that the gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides is imputable on the part of present complainant. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for admitting the present complaint filed with the huge delay of delay of 10 years, 11 months and 21 days in filing the present complaint. In our considered opinion present complaint is hopelessly time barred therefore the complaint filed by the complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation.

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. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on 27.11.2024.

(SANJAY KUMAR)              (NIPUR CHANDNA)             (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                       MEMBER                           MEMBER