Delhi

StateCommission

CC/422/2014

HARJINDER SINGH BRAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision : 24.11.2016

Date of arguments heard : 16.11.2016

Complaint Case No.422/2014

 

Harjinder Singh Brar

S/o Sh. Mal Singh Brar

R/o V.P.O. Malke Via,

Kotkupara-151207

……Complainant

Vs.

TDI Infrastructure Ltd.

Regd. Office

9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Dellhi-110 001

 

Also at:-

2.       G-7, Ground Floor

          Connaught Circus

          Opp. Madras Hotel Block,

          New Delhi-110 001

3.       TDI City Kundli,

          Main NH-1

          Sonipat (HR)

• Opposite Party

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial)

 

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.         This order will dispose of the application moved by OP under section 26 of Consumer Protection Act for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the same is barred by limitations under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.
2.         According to OP it cancel the allotment in favour of the complainant vide letter dated 7.9.10 calling upon the complainant to deposit the EDC charges due and outstanding against him on or before 30.9.10.  It was also intimated that failure on the part of the complainant to comply with the demand would entail levying of interest @18% p.a. vide letter dated 8.12.11, complainant was put to notice that failure of the complainant to comply with the demand may lead the cancellation of the flat. The complainant was called upon to tendered outstanding amount on or before 22.11.12. Despite that the complainant failed to come forward to meet with his obligations of time payment and the same resulted in issuing the reminder dated 13.2.12 calling upon the complainant to make payment on or before 20.2.12. OP issued further letter dated 22.2.12 as final reminder but to no use. OP was constrained to cancel allotment vide letter dated 27.2.12. The complaint filed on 4.9.14 is barred by limitations.
3.         The complainant has filed reply stating that this objection had already been dealt with in order dated 28.7.15. The application is another tact to delay and misuse of process of law. He wrote numerous letters to OP on 8.10.12, 17.10.12 and 24.12.12. It is settled principle of law that limitations start from the day when last communications was sourcing or acknowledgment. Hence limitations started from 16.4.13 which was the last letter given by the complainant.
4.         I have gone through the record and heard the arguments. The receipt of letter dated 27.2.12 by OP to the complainant is not any dispute. Regarding plea of limitation starting from last communication, the Counsel for the OP submitted that limitation starts from the date of accrual of cause of action and not from date of continuous of cause of action. According to him limitation can not be extended by unilateral connection of complaint. In support of his submissions he is relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. V.N. Shrikhande V. Mr. Anita Sena Fernandes  AIR 2012 ________
5.         Objection of complainant regarding same plea having being decided by this Commission vide order dated 28.7.15 is not tenable as the said order doe not at all dealt with said plea.
6.         In view of the above discussions, I find that the complaint is barred by limitations. The application of the OP is allowed and complaint is dismissed.
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge.
8. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)