HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the respondents challenging the order dated 09/07/2019 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit – II (in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CC/163/2018 whereby the Learned District Commission dismissed the complaint case on contest against the respondents / opposite parties.
- The appellants / complainants instituted a complaint case being No. CC/163/2018 against the respondents / opposite parties praying for the following reliefs :-
“a) To direct the OPs to stand by their obligation as expressly provided in the brochure and Agreement for sale and thereby further direct the Opposite Parties to hand over physical possession of the said plot upon constructing the metal road to reach to the plots of the Complainants land alongside construction of side drains and other necessary work pertaining to basic infrastructure as was assured under Clause 6 of the Terms & Conditions of the brochure.
b) To direct for causing necessary work for water supply, electricity and telephone connection into the plot as has been assured under Clause 7 of the Terms & Conditions of the Brochure and may pass order/s to complete the same within 1 month from passing of such direction.
c) To direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of about Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment and for not complying with the obligation as has been expressly assured under the brochure and also under the Agreement for Sale.
d) To direct the Opposite Party to cause necessary correction in the Deed of Conveyance as has been executed under Book No. 1 Vol. No. 12 Pg. 43338 to 4357, being No. 03482 for the year 2012 before ADSR, Bhangar and thereby indicate correct value replacing or correcting as is appearing under Memo of Consideration considering all the Money Receipts and the total value within such money receipts being taken against the total consideration value of the said plot.
e) To direct physical demarcation of the plot being identified and known as Plot No. A-310 (old B-111) at Shantiban for a plot admeasuring 2 cottahs 8 chittaks lying and situated at Mouza Uttar Gazipur, J.L. No. 17, Pargana Kolikata, R.S. No. 178, Touzi – 173 comprised in Dag No. 1373, L.R. Khatian No. 253, 1388, 811/1, 891 being Plot No. A-310 (old B-111) at Shantiban within local limit Polerhar-II Gram Panchayat, P.S. Kashipur, Dist. 24 Parganas (S) butted and bounded in the North by lake, in the South by 35 Kancha Common Passage, in the East by land of Plot No.A-311 and in the West by land of Plot No. A-309.
f) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a cost of litigation amounting Rs.65,000/-.
g) To pass such Order/s as may deem fit and proper for the end of justice.”
3. The respondents / opposite parties entered appearance in this case and were contesting the case by filing written version and denying the allegations made in the petition of complaint.
4. In support of their claim both the parties have tendered evidence and the complainants have also relied upon some documents annexed with the petition of complaint. Both the parties have filed their questionnaires and replies against each other. Both the parties also filed BNA before the Learned District Commission. After hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned District Commission was pleased to dismiss the complaint case being No. CC/163/2018 by the order impugned which is reproduced as under :-
“That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs 1,2 and 4 with no order as to costs leaving it open to the complainants to file a suit for appropriate relief by approaching the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.”
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the appellants / complainants have preferred the instant appeal.
6. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has urged that the Learned District Commission has failed to appreciate the complainants’ case and has wrongly held that the consumer case is barred by limitation and the consumer case is not maintainable in law. On the other hand, the Learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties has urged that the Learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the petition of complaint because the appellants / complainants got the conveyance registered in their favour on 18/07/2012 whereas the complaint case has been filed by the complainants on 11/04/2018.
7. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the parties and carefully perused the memo of appeal and other relevant documents. Now, I shall have to consider the following issues :-
i) Whether the complaint case is barred by limitation
ii) Whether the complaint case is maintainable in law.
8. On perusal of the petition of complaint and relevant documents it appears to me that the Deed of Conveyance was registered on 18/07/2012. It is the case of the complainants / appellants that the opposite parties refused to hand over the possession of the subject plot on execution and registration. Therefore, I think that the cause of action for filing of the instant complaint case arose on 18/07/2012. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-
“24A. 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.
(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.”
9. From the aforesaid provision it appears that this provision is peremptory in nature, requiring the Consumer Commission to examine before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of cause of action. The Consumer Commission, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint, if sufficient cause is shown.
10. On careful perusal of the record it appears to me that this complaint has not been filed within time. There is a delay in filing the petition of complaint by the complainants. Moreover, it appears to me that this complaint is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay.
11. At the time of hearing argument Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants / complainants has urged that the cause of action of the present case arose when the opposite parties refused to comply the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale dated 25/10/2017 by filing written statement before the Assistant Director, Central Consumer Grievances Redressal Cell. I fail to accept the contention made by the Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainants / appellants.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors., reported at (2014) 6 SCC 460 has held the following :-
“10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided.........”
13. The Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported at III (2006) CPJ 414 NC, has observed that :-
“no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.”
14. In the present case also the complaint case has been filed after more than five years from the date of cause of action which arose on 18/07/2022 i.e. the date of execution and registration of the Deed of Conveyance.
15. I find that the complaint is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay. Then it was the duty of the complainant to approach before the Court of Law by filing a complaint within the stipulated period of limitation i.e. within two years from the date of cause of action. But without doing so, the complainants filed this complaint before this Commission after long five years from the date of cause of action without filing any separate petition praying for the condonation of delay which is contrary to the provision of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
16. The object of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to the consumer dispute relating to deficiency in service or supply of defective goods. The Consumer Fora are Courts of limited jurisdiction. By filing the present consumer case the complainants have prayed for rectification of Deed of Conveyance dated 18/07/2012 and physical demarcation of the subject plot being No. A-310 at Shantiban Project. Such declaration can only be granted by the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction, not the Consumer Fora functioning within the framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable.
17. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has referred three judgments reported in (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), 2015 (3) CPJ 440 (NC) & CDJ 2012 APHC 421. However, reliance of these three judgments in the adjudication of the complaint, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.
18. Under these facts and circumstances and considering the materials available on record I am of the view that the Learned District Commission has rightly held that the consumer complaint case is not maintainable in law and it is barred by limitation.
19. In the result, the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any costs.
20. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
