National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Joseph Vincent Correia vs Mendoz Constructions & Estate ... on 29 May, 2002
ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. (Member)
1. This appeal arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa, which dismissed the complaint both on merits as well as on limitation. To dispose of this matter, we need not touch the merits of the matter, as the short point to be decided is, whether the complainant was within limitation.
2. The State Commission, while dealing with the point as to whether the complaint was within limitation, observed as under:
"As seen from the allegations made in the complaints, the Opposite Party completed the construction of the flat and also possession of the flat was given to the Complainants on
3.1.1998. The present complaint has been filed on 28.6.2000 after expiry of two years from the date of taking possession. When possession has been taken by the complaints, the filing of the complaint after lapse of two years of period of limitation is to be viewed very strictly. Even otherwise, on the question of merits also as seen when possession of the flat was taken it is to be presumed that after completion of all facilities the possession was taken by the Complainants. As it is stated by depositing the amount separate electricity and water meters had to be taken. Counsel for the Complainants during the course of arguments, submitted the relief prayed by the Complainants in the complaint with respect to restoration of electricity and water supply is not pressed and also the relief for direction to obtain occupancy certification has not been pressed. Even for providing of swimming pool and other amenities as claimed, is also not pressed. In other words, the Complainants have given up the reliefs prayed in para 34(a),
(b), (c) and (d)."
3. We have heard the Appellant/Complainant in person and have also gone through the order of the State Commission carefully. The Complainant, before us, could not advance any ground which could be treated as sufficient ground for the condoning the delay in filing the complaint in time. Further no application for condonation of delay was filed seeking condonation of delay by the State Commission. The finding that the compliant is barred by time cannot be assailed. We also find that all reliefs regarding various amenities were not pressed before the State Commission. The appeal is, therefore, without any merit and we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the State Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.