National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dlm Enclave & Anr. vs Naresh Batham on 30 April, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2984 OF 2013 (From the order dated 20.05.13 in R.P. No. 54/2013 of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) WITH I.A. No. 5154/2013 (FOR STAY) 1. DLM Enclave 46, Malviya Nagar, 2nd Floor, Ram Laxmi Parisar Bhopal through Sh A K Dubey 2. Sh A. K. Dubey s/o Sh S N Dubey 46, Malviya Nagar, 2nd Floor, Ram Laxmi Parisar, Bhopal ... Petitioners/Opposite Parties versus Naresh Batham HD 66, Abhiruchi Parisar, Old Subhash Nagar Bhopal Respondent/Complainant
BEFORE HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Prithu Garg, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 30th APRIL 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 20.05.2013, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in RP No. 54/2013, DLM Enclave and Anr. vrsus Naresh Batham, vide which the said petition against the order dated 30.04.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in complaint no. 668/2012, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum Bhopal, alleging that he entered into an agreement dated 20.02.2000 with the petitioners/OPs according to which, he was to purchase a plot for his own use from the petitioners/OPs at village Chhapari (Ratibar), Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal. Plot No. B-79, measuring 2000 sq. ft. @ ` 12/- per sq. ft was allotted to him. As per the agreement, he was required to pay the registration fee only at the time of execution of the registration deed.
According to the complainant, he was required to make payment of ` 24,000/- for the 2000 sq. ft. plot and ` 1000/- as membership fee, in total ` 25,000/- to the petitioners/OPs. The complainant made payment of this amount in full till 08.07.2003, but despite making payment, the OPs did not take any action in getting the sale deed executed in his favour. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, requesting for a direction to the OPs/Petitioners to get the sale-deed registered in his favour or in the alternative, to refund the cost of the flat @ ` 700/- per sq. ft., i.e., ` 14 lakh and ` 5 lakh as compensation for harassment.
3. In their written statement filed by the petitioners/OPs, it was contended that the complaint was barred by limitation as per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because it was made after a period of 12 years from the date of agreement and after a period of 9 years from the date of last payment. Moreover, the relief in question, could be allowed only by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioners also denied that the price of the developed plot was ` 12 per sq. ft. In fact, ` 12 per sq. ft. was the price of the undeveloped plot. The complainant was required to make payments as per the payment schedule, failing which, the petitioner had the right to increase the price of the plot. Moreover, the allotment was liable to be cancelled for failure of the complainant to make payments in time. The petitioners/OPs also stated that the price had been hiked to `30/- per sq. ft. and the complainant had been informed accordingly.
4. Before the District Forum, an application was made under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, saying that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground that it was time barred as per the section 24A of the Act. The District Forum passed their order on this application on 30.04.2013, saying that it was a case of continuing cause of action and hence, the consumer complaint was within the period of limitation. The application of the petitioners was accordingly dismissed and the case was adjourned for 16.05.2013. Against this order, the petitioners/OPs filed revision petition before the State Commission and the State Commission vide their order passed on 20.05.2013, dismissed the petition and upheld the view of the District Forum that it was a case of continuing cause of action. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.
5. At the time of arguments before me, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the allotment of plot in favour of the complainant had been cancelled by the petitioners for his failure to deposit the amount in question and the money deposited had also been forfeited. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the last instalment was paid in the year 2003 and the agreement was made in the year 2000, but the complaint in question had been made in October 2012 and hence, it was hopelessly barred by limitation as per section 24A of the Act. The learned counsel argued that even if it is believed that there was continuing cause of action, some reasonable limit of time had to be observed for making such complaints. During the intervening period, there had not been any application or representation on behalf of the complainant. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the order of the Honble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) [as reported in JT 2009 (4) SC 191], in support of his arguments, stating that a consumer complaint should not be admitted unless there was sufficient justification to condone the delay as per section 24A of the Act. The learned counsel has also pointed out my attention to the orders passed by the National Commission in K.S. Bhatia versus Jeevan Hospital & Ors. [as reported in IV (2003) CPJ 9 (NC)] and the order of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and ors. versus Md. Illiyas [as reported in (2006) 1 SCC 275], and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav [as reported in (2005) 2 SCC 42].
6. In reply, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the District Forum and the State Commission had rightly observed that it was a case of continuing cause of action and hence, section 24A of the Act was not applicable in the present case. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant had made full payment for the plot in question, but the petitioners had failed to execute the registered saledeed for the reasons best known to them and hence, they committed grave deficiency in service.
Regarding the cancellation of plot, the respondent stated that he had not received any intimation about cancellation or the forfeiture of his money. The orders passed by the Fora below were, therefore, in accordance with law and should be sustained. The learned counsel for respondent has drawn attention to order dated 09.05.2012, passed by the Honble Supreme Court in CC No. 8481/2012 Meerut Development Authority versus Mukesh Kumar Gupta and order dated 18.02.2014, passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 1058/2014, Ravi Developments Builder and Developers & Ors. versus Jayanthibhai V. Ranka.
7. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. The admitted facts are that the complainant and the petitioner entered into an agreement on 20.02.2000, a copy of which is on record, in accordance with which, the complainant decided to purchase a plot measuring 2000 sq. ft. in the real estate project, being developed by the petitioners @ ` 12/- per sq. ft. Plot no. B-79 was allotted to the complainant and it has been clearly stated in the agreement that the developer will not charge any other amount, except the registration fees in future from the purchaser. It has also been stated that the developer will provide the facilities of approach road to the plot, electricity, water and other facilities.
It has also been stated that the balance payment will be recovered according to the rules of the Company and if regular payment is not made by the purchaser, the rate (value) can be enhanced or the allotment can be cancelled. It is clear that in the agreement itself, no schedule of payment has been given. It is also clear that the complainant allottee was supposed to pay a sum of ` 25,000/- which he has already paid till July 2003. It is, however, not made out anywhere as to why the registration deed in question could not be executed between the parties. The petitioners have taken the plea that the plot stood cancelled and the amount in question stood forfeited, but there is no document on record to support their version.
8. In view of the above facts, I do not find any legal infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Forum, duly affirmed by the State Commission that this is a case of continuing cause of action, where the petitioners have failed to explain the reasons for the non-execution of the saledeed, although they had received full amount of the plot from the complainant. The provisions of section 24A are, therefore, not applicable in the present case. In fact, the order passed by the National Commission in Ravi Developments Builder and Developers & Ors. versus Jayanthibhai V. Ranka (supra) is based on similar facts and it was observed by this Commission that there was continuous cause of action, because the petitioners had not handed over the possession, nor they had refunded the amount paid by the complainant. In view of these facts, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER RS/