National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ramratan M. Shriwas vs Jayant H. Thakkar on 2 August, 2011
Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 19
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 640 of
2006
(Against the order
dated 19.11.03 in FA No.
1681/01
of the State Commission,
MAHARASHTRA )
With
I/A/2/2011
(Addl. Documents)
RAMRATAN M. SHRIWAS
Petitioner (s)
002, Akshay Apartment
Near R.C. Church,
Murbad Road
Kalyan, Dist. Thane
Maharashtra-421301
Versus
JAYANT H. THAKKAR Respondent (s)
8 Saikrupa C.H. Society
Opp. Punjab National Bank
Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)
Dist. Thane
Maharashtra-421301
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE
MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocate
With Petitioner in person.
Pronounced on : 2nd August, 2011
O R D E R
PER MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai (State Commission for short) by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. Petitioner herein is the complainant who had purchased flat from the OP/respondent herein who is the builder. Alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs in not honoring their lawful commitments made in the agreement entered into by them with the petitioner, the petitioner lodged a consumer complaint with the District Forum. As per the admitted position, an agreement was made by the OP with the petitioner on 21.1.1992. In pursuance of this agreement, the accommodation/flat was provided by the OP to the petitioner on 16.6.1993. Since the petitioner found that the OP builder had not honored a number of commitments made by him in the agreement, he lodged the complaint in question on 23.3.98 vide consumer complaint no.133/98 with the District Forum. The petitioner/complainant made a number of prayers in his complaint and requested the District Forum to grant them against the OP/respondents. On being noticed, the OP resisted the complaint and alleged suppression of material facts on the part of the complainant. It was submitted by the OP that the complainant himself failed to comply with the alleged agreement dated 21.1.1992 and also failed to pay balance consideration. Besides this, the OP also raised the point that the complaint was barred by limitation as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved an application for condonation of delay which was also replied and objected to by the OP. The District Forum, therefore, considered the issue regarding the limitation first and after perusing the documents placed by the respective parties before it, dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal of the complainant/petitioner and upheld the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Both the fora below have dismissed the complaint through their well-reasoned orders. The State Commission while upholding the order of the District Forum has recorded the following reasons in support of its order:-
On own showing of the complainant that the possession of the flat was given to the flat purchaser/complainant in the year 1993, whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 1998 i.e. after about 5 years.
Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides limitation of 2 years for filing consumer disputes on and after accrual of cause of action.
That the area of the flat was not as agreed or there were defects as sought to be contended could have been known to the flat purchaser on the date when the possession was made over i.e. in the year 1993.
That being so, for the deficiencies as alleged, filing of the complaint in the year 1998 in our view would be squarely beyond the period of limitation.
Across it was submitted that thereafter correspondence exchanged between the parties. Reference is also made to the Agreements in question.
Position of law on the point is well settled. In that, on and after accrual of cause of action, party cannot get the time of limitation enlarged by indulging in exchange of correspondence.
Since the delay is of 3 years in filing the complaint, which has not been sufficiently explained, the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is proper needing no interference.
2. We agree with the view taken by the fora below. It is well established by catena of judicial pronouncements that once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between the parties. The provision regarding limitation period contained in section 24A being of mandatory nature, the fora below was duty bound to determine whether the complaint is within the limitation period and since on consideration of the material placed before them, they found that the complaint was barred by limitation and sufficient cause had not been made out to condone the delay in question, no fault could be found with the impugned orders.
3. We have gone through the record of the case and also heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent chose to remain absent and hence has been proceeded ex parte. The only point involved in the present revision petition is in respect of the limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that there was continuous and long correspondence between the parties and hence it is the case where there was a continuing cause of action. We are not impressed by the arguments since they have already been duly considered by the fora below. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in a recent judgement delivered in the case of State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121]:-
Section 24-A of the Act, is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24-A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder. (Para 11) As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. It is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of section 24-A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. (Para 12)
4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the concurrent orders of the fora below were in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court. The revision petition devoid of any merit, therefore, is liable for dismissal and the same is dismissed accordingly.
(V.B. GUPTA, J) PRESIDING MEMBER (SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/