Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/373/2021

Deepak Kaushish - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Navjot Singh

20 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/373/2021
Date of Institution	:	10/06/2021
Date of Decision	:	20/05/2024

 

Deepak Kaushish S/o Prem Chand Sharma presently residing at Tropical Vacation Network Co. Ltd. 123/24-26-Moo 5, Bangtao Place, Cherngtalay, A. Thalang, 83100 PHUKET, Thailand through his special power of attorney Prem Chand Sharma son of Dhani Ram Sharma r/o House No.1518, Sector 21, Panchkula.

Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1. The Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd., Corp. Office, SCO No.110-111, Sector 8, Chandigarh, presently at the Shalimar Mega Mall, Sector-5, Panchkula.

 

2. The Managing Director, The Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd., Corp. Office, SCO No.110-111, Sector 8, Chandigarh, presently at The Shalimar Mega Mall, Sector-5, Panchkula.

 

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Arun Kumar, Advocate (through VC) and Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that Mrs.Arti Sharma W/o Mr. Vivek Sharma purchased a Commercial Showroom of Category-B on 16.12.2004 to earn her livelihood, by way of self-employment (Annexure-C-2). The said showroom of Category-B bearing Showroom No.305 was further purchased by Mr.Deepak Kaushish on 02.05.2005 to earn his livelihood, by way of self-employment from Mrs.Arti Sharma (Annexure-C-3). The complainant was allotted a 500 sq. ft. showroom allotment letter dated 02.09.2008. As per the showroom was fixed for a consideration of Rs.38,01,000/- (Annexure C-4). The complainant has duly paid an amount of Rs.22,80,600/- out of the total consideration of Rs.38,01,000/- till 2.9.2008. Furter, it was mutually decided by both the parties that the remaining amount will be paid by the complainant in 120 equated monthly installments of Rs.26,607/- starting from November 2008 to October, 2018. The complainant paid the monthly installments to the OPs in a very time bound manner till 2009. The complainant approached the OPs and enquired about the development of the project and OPs ensured the complainant that development work is at full swing and after some time the possession of the showroom will be given after depositing the remaining amount. Several attempts have been made by the complainant for redressal of his grievances by visiting the office of OPs, but to no avail. It is further alleged that no permission was granted to the OPs by the HUDA for transferring the rights or for selling the shops/showroom in the mall (Annexure C-9). It is on account of this reason only that inspite of the lapse of 16 years, the OP has neither developed the project nor has handed over possession of the showroom to the complainant or in an alternative has also not refunded the amount to the complainant. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is time barred as the allotment letter was issued in the year 2008 i.e., about 14 years back and possession is already delivered to the complainant on dated 06.10.2009 (Annexure OP-1). The present complaint is absolutely infructuous, as possession of showroom, has already been delivered to the complainant in year 2009, but the complainant instead of performing their part of contract to make the showroom continuously operational approached this Commission in order to escape from their liability to pay due amount as per terms and conditions of allotment. Even plenty of postdated cheques issued by the complainant towards monthly installments of consideration price are dishonored (Annexure OP-5-colly). The OP intimated the complainant vide various letters/reminders to deposit the amount due against them towards EMI, Common Area Maintenance Charges and Non-Operational Charges etc. and OP requested the complainant to deposit the same but the complainant despite receipt of said letters failed to deposit the same (Annexure OP-6 colly). Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP, hence, opportunity to file rejoinder was closed vide order dated 17.11.2022.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that the showroom allotted by the OPs to the complainant has not been yet handed over and OPs also do not have the permission for selling the shops/showroom or for transfer rights. It is an admitted fact that the allotment letter was issued on 2.9.2008. On perusal of Annexure OP-1, it is observed that the complainant has already taken physical possession of the showroom on dated 6.10.2009.
7.     On perusal of Annexure OP-20, it is observed that the OP is complete & bona fide owner of the shopping mall and have all the ownership documents (Ex.OP-20) i.e., allotment letter, permission letter, possession/occupation certificate, No due Certificate, conveyance deed and non-encumbrance certificate. It is observed that the physical possession of the showroom was obtained on 06.10.2009 and the complaint has been filed after a period of around 12 years.
8.     As per Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, the period of limitation is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The relevant portion of Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as under:-

^{“69(1).Limitation period. –}

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.”}

 

9.     With reference to above discussion, it is observed that the complainant has approached this Commission after 12 years for redressal of his grievance, hence we are of the view that the present complaint is time barred by limitation under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the consumer complaint is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
20/05/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member