State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs Shireen Cyrus Bharucha & Anr. vs Shri Niranjan Ramesh Shah & Ors. on 3 December, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Miscellaneous Application No.321/2012 a/w.
Complaint Case No. CC/12/217
1. MRS SHIREEN CYRUS
BHARUCHA
1 DRAVESH HOUSE 12 SAHANI SUJAN PARK
LULLA NAGAR PUNE - 411040
2. MR CYRUS P BHARUCHA
1 DRAVESH HOUSE 12 SAHANI SUJAN PARK
LULLA NAGAR PUNE - 411040
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI NIRANJAN
RAMESH SHAH
SUBHADRA PROPERTIES
PVT LTD 4 ROYALE HERITAGE
GPO ROAD NASIK
- 422001
NASHIK
2. SHRI ANIRUDDHA
RAMESH SHAH
SUBHADRA PROPERTIES
PVT.LTD.4,ROYALE HERITAGE, GPO
ROAD,NASHIK-422001
3. SUBHADRA
PROPERTIES PVT.LTD.THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR
.4,ROYALE HERITAGE, GPO ROAD,NASHIK-422001
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE Mr. S.R.
Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.Jaydev Trivedi, Advocate for applicants/complainants.
None present for the non-applicants/opponents ORAL ORDER Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Mr.Jaydev Trivedi, Advocate present for the applicants/complainants. Non-applicant/opponent is absent though served as per India Post report on record on 15/10/2012. Therefore, we proceed to hear application for condonation of delay in their absence.
2. Heard.
3. In the instant case, as per statement of the complainants, they have purchased a plot with intention to construct a bungalow thereon from the opponent on 25/01/2008. Thereafter, complainants approached and requested the opponent to furnish 7/12 extract, property card and certificate of Non-agricultural status of the said plot. It is also submitted that since those requests were not met out, they served a notice through lawyer in the month of February 2012 and July 2012 and thereafter, filed this consumer complaint along with delay condonation application asking to condone the delay of 1556 days.
4. We asked the Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants/complainants two queries. Firstly, as to how this could be a consumer complaint within scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for brevity) and secondly, what should be starting point of limitation in the above referred complaint, referring to cause of action accrued in favour of applicants/complainants to file a consumer complaint.
5. As far as first query is concerned, from the facts as stated, it could be seen that documents which were sought after agreeing to purchase the plot relating to 7/12 extract, property card and NA certificate, all these three documents could have been obtained from the concerned authorities without aid of the opponents. If for want of these documents, according to the complainants, their title remains imperfect or defective that cannot be a deficiency in service on the part of opponents. Referring to prayer clause, particularly, clause 28(a)to(c) from the main complaint, what is claimed is the monetary relief and nothing is stated about removal of deficiency in service. As we observed earlier, there cannot be a deficiency in service for non-supply of documents since, complainants themselves could have obtained those documents without any aid of opponents and further with open eyes the complainants entered into the agreement to purchase plot. Under these circumstances, we find that this cannot be entertained as a consumer dispute. Secondly, we find that delay condonation application is not tenable since no starting point of delay is reasonably ascertained or stated since, perhaps, no cause of action arose in their favour.
For the reasons stated above, we dismiss in limine delay condonation application vis--vis consumer complaint filed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced Dated 3rd December 2012.
[HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member [HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER dd