National Consumer Disputes Redressal
,Ravi Developments, vs Mr. Jayantibhai V. Ranka, on 18 February, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO.1058 OF 2014
(Against the order dated 9.12.2013
passed in M.A. No.13/53 in Complaint No.212 of 2013 by the
State Commission, Maharashtra)
1. Ravi Developments,
Builder and Developers
A Partnership firm, having Corporate
Office at Laxmi
Palace,
76, Mathuradas
Road,
Kandivalli (West)
Mumbai 400 067
2. Mr. Tokarshi Shah
3. Mr. Ketan Shah
4. Mr. Jayesh Shah
Partners of Appellant No.1
Having address at Laxmi
Palace,
76, Mathuradas
Road,
Kandivalli (West)
Mumbai 400 067 Petitioners
Versus
1. Mr. Jayantibhai V.
Ranka,
Residing at 15, Savita
Sadan
Dubhash Lane,
V.P. Road,
Mumbai 400 004.
2. Mrs. Arunaben K Kapadia,
Residing at A.K. Jewellers,
Thakurdwar Girgaon Road,
Opp. Golden Will Restaurant,
Mumbai 400 004. Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE
MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioners : Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Advocate
with Ms. Kriti Singh Gahlout,
Advocate
Pronounced on: 18th February, 2014
ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Being aggrieved by order dated 9.12.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short, State Commission), Petitioners/OP Nos.1 to 4 have filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, Act).
2. Respondent No.1/Complainant filed a consumer complaint against the petitioners before the State Commission. Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 16.6 years (6019 days) was also filed.
3. Petitioners opposed the application for condonation of delay by filing reply to the same.
4. Respondents no.1 and 2 jointly booked a bungalow in the project launched by the petitioners. As per allotment letter dated 20.1.1995, respondents were allotted Bungalow No.18 in the proposed site by the petitioners. It is stated that respondent no.1 alongwith respondent no.2 paid total consideration of Rs.3,32,000/- jointly, being part consideration. It is alleged that till date, petitioners had not executed regular agreement for sale. Respondent no.1 had been asking the petitioners about status of the bungalow. It is also alleged that petitioners never informed him that local authorities have raised certain technical objections. In the meanwhile, respondent no.2 without the knowledge of respondent no.1, had accepted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioners in the year 2002. Thereafter, respondent no.1 served a legal notice on 17.9.20012. In reply, the petitioners stated for the first time that allotment of respondent no.1 has been cancelled and terminated in 1996. It is stated that respondents have not received any alleged termination letter dated 23.3.1996. It is further stated even after the alleged termination, petitioners had received a sum of Rs.75,000/- from respondent no.1. 5. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed by respondent no.1 seeking directions to the petitioners to handover vacant possession of the bungalow or to provide any other suitable bungalow/flat in the same area. In the alternative to pay the principal amount alongwith 24% p.a. interest.
6. The complaint was contested by the petitioners, who in their written statement has taken the plea that since respondent no.1 has not made the balance payment, allotment of the bungalow was cancelled, vide letter dated 23.3.1996. Thus, the complaint filed by respondent no.1 in the year 2013 is hopelessly barred by limitation.
7. The State Commission, while deciding the question of condonation of delay held;
Heard both the parties on the point of delay condonation application. It appears that bungalow no.18 in the project known as Gaurav Enclave was allotted to the complainant by an allotment letter dated 28/01/1995. From time to time, instalments were accepted from the complainant by the opponent no.1 to 4. The complainant filed the complaint for claiming possession of the bungalow as per the allotment. Claiming possession of the allotted bungalow is continuous cause of action. Therefore, there is no question of delay on the part of complainant. Hence, application for condonation of delay disposed off with these observations.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record.
9. Relevant terms of allotment letter dated January 20, 1995 state as under;
We are pleased to inform you that we have allotted Bungalow No.18 in Plot 1 as requested by you in our proposed project known as GAURAV ENCLAVE under consideration of the Plot bearing Survey No.73 to 76, 79 Near Green Court Club Village Ghodbunder, Taluka & District Thane, in your favour. The area of the said Bungalow is 1250 Sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.901/-. The total value of the said Bungalow is Rs.11,26,250/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) We further confirm that we have received a sum of Rs.31,000/- (Rupees Thirty one Thousand only) by two cheques against the said Bungalow as follows:
Amount Cheque No. Dated Bank & Branch Rs.15,500/- 888958 19/01/95 B.O.I,Bullion Exchange Rs.15,500/- 269541 21/01/95 Janta Sahkari Bank Ltd., Girgam Immediately after the execution of regular Agreement for Sale between the Parties herewith, this allotment letter shall have no effect and it will be treated as null and void subsequently. And the amount on paid hereinabove will be adjusted in the Agreement value.
10. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners till date, have executed any regular agreement for sale as per above allotment letter. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners had received a sum of Rs.3,32,000/- from respondent no.1 as well as respondent no.2, though in the year 2002, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was refunded to respondent no.2 by the petitioners. However, no explanation been given by the petitioners as to why the bungalow in question in view of allotment letter dated 20.1.1995 has not been allotted to respondent no.1 and why regular agreement for sale has not been executed so far. Another aspect is that the petitioners after alleged termination of the allotment, have accepted Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent no.1 and 2 jointly on 1.8.1996. Thereafter, again petitioners had received a further sum of Rs.25,000/- jointly from respondents no.1 and 2, on 18.11.1996. We fail to understand when as per petitioners case, the allotment stood cancelled in March, 1996, then where was the occasion for them to accept further payment in the month of August and November, 1996. This shows mala fide act on the part of the petitioners. Further, petitioners have not handed over the possession of the bungalow in question so far nor have refunded the amount paid by respondent no.1. Certainly there is a continuous cause of action in favour of respondent no.1.
11. This Commission in Juliet Vs. Quadros Vs. M/s. Mrs. Malthi Kumar, IV (2005) CPJ 51 (NC) has held that Cause of action remains continuous till allotment of site or refusal.
12. Same view was taken in Lata Construction & others Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Another, III (1999) CPJ 46 (State Commission).
13. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaint filed by respondent no.1 is barred by limitation. The order passed by the State Commission do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error from any angle. Therefore, the impugned order hereby is confirmed and revision petition is ordered to be dismissed, with no order as to costs.
.J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER (REKHA GUPTA) Sg. MEMBER