State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Leela Negi vs Dlf Universal Ltd on 10 April, 2023
C.C. 155/2021 MS. LEENA NEGI VS. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. D.O.D.: 10.04.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 10.09.2021
Date of hearing: 10.01.2023
Date of Decision: 10.04.2023
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 155/2021
IN THE MATTER OF
MS. LEELA NEGI,
R/O CGV - 065, 6TH FLOOR,
DLF CAPIATAL GREENS,
15, SHIVAJI MARG, MOTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI - 110015.
(Through: Ms. Mitthu Jain & Mr. Apoorve Karol, Advocates)
...Complainant
VERSUS
DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS DLF RETAIL DEVELOPERS
LTD.)
THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
3RD FLOOR, SHOPPING MALL, ARJUN MARG,
GURGOAN - 122002, HARYANA.
CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110001.
(Through: Karanjawala & Co.)
...Opposite Party
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 8
C.C. 155/2021 MS. LEENA NEGI VS. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. D.O.D.: 10.04.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Ms. Mithu Jain, Mr. Apoorve Karol & Mr. Lakshay
Sharma, counsel for Complainant.
Mr. Kalyan Kumar Thever, Counsel for Opposite Party.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:
a) Direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation for delay in handover of apartment/unit to the original allottee/Complainant herein in accordance with order/judgment dated 03.01.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Commission in C.C. No. 351 of 2015 as well as the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter bearing C.A. No. 3864-3889 of 2020 in the form of interest @ 6% per annum till realization of the said amount(s);
b) Direct the Opposite Party to compensate the Complainant herein with an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) along with interest @ 18% per annum till realization of the said amounts) for mental agony, harassment suffered due to deficiencies in services by not providing amenities/facilities promised by the Opposite Party;
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 8
C.C. 155/2021 MS. LEENA NEGI VS. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. D.O.D.: 10.04.2023
c) Direct the Opposite Party to provide all facilities and
amenities as represented and promised at the time of booking the unit by the Complainant herein;
d) Direct the Opposite Party to pay litigation costs of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the Complainant herein;
e) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that on 25.09.2009, the Complainant wrote an application for allotment of an apartment bearing no. CGV-065 in the project "DLF Capital Greens" of the Opposite Party situated at 15, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi - 110015. Accordingly, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 29.09.2009 allotted said apartment to the Complainant and an apartment buyer agreement was executed between the parties on 25.11.2010. As per clause 11 (a) said apartment buyer agreement, the Opposite Party was to hand over the possession of the said apartment within 36 months from the date of application i.e., on and before 25.09.2012. However, the possession of the said apartment was offered on 22.02.2018 and handed over the possession to the Complainant on 18.04.2018 i.e., after the delay of more than 5 years. Further, the Opposite Party failed to pay any compensation for the inordinate delay in handing over the possession of the said apartment. Therefore, the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation for the delayed possession as per supreme court precedent.
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 8 C.C. 155/2021 MS. LEENA NEGI VS. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. D.O.D.: 10.04.2023
3. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant is not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the possession of said apartment was handed over to the Complainant without protest, therefore, she ceases to be a consumer. He further submitted that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.
4. The counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that the present complaint is barred by the law of limitation as the present complaint as the possession of the said apartment was handed much prior to two years from the date of filing present complaint. He further submitted that the Complainant defaulted in making payment towards the total consideration of the said apartment.
5. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
6. Written Arguments of the both parties also on the record.
7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties.
8. Before delving into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate the preliminary issues involved in the present matter.
9. Whether the present complaint is barred by limitation under Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
10. The Opposite Party has contended that the present complaint is barred by limitation under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, wherein it is provided as under:
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 8
C.C. 155/2021 MS. LEENA NEGI VS. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. D.O.D.: 10.04.2023
69. Limitation period. --
(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the Complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
11. A perusal of the above statutory provision, it is clear that the complaint shall be filed before the State Commission within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Further, the Opposite Party in the written submissions filed by it relied upon Complaint no. 789/2020 titled Avtar Singh Chauhan vs. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Anr. decided on 02.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC, wherein it is stated in that in case where the possession of the property in question has already been handed over to the allotee/buyer then the limitation period shall commence from the date of offer of possession.
12. On the other hand, the Complainant has on the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto writ petition bearing W.P. (Civ) no. 3 of 2020, wherein, the limitation period was extended due to spread of Covid-19.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 8 C.C. 155/2021 MS. LEENA NEGI VS. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. D.O.D.: 10.04.2023
13. At this stage, we further deem it appropriate to refer complaint no.
789/202 titled as Avtarsingh Chauhan vs. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Anr decided on 02.03.2023, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:
"14. ......... It is undeniable that in the present case, the Occupancy Certificate was received by the OP on 21.2.2017, and only after that the offer of possession was made to the Complainants on 23.3.2017. Consequently, the period of limitation starting from the latter date would end. On 23.3.2019. Any Complaint filed after that date would per se be beyond limitation. But the Complainants in the present case have resorted to a novel method to bring their claims within the statutory limitation period. Their contention is that the letter dated 23.3.2017, which according to the Opposite Parties was the offer of possession made subsequent to receipt of the Occupancy Certificate was nothing more than a "forwarding letter of the Statement of Accounts" of the Complainants. Their further contention is that the actual offer of possession ought to be treated as 17.5.2019 i.e., when the "possession letter" of that date was issued by the Opposite Parties...
15. ........There is no document whatsoever on record to show that at any stage the Complainants had raised any objections to any of the conditions mentioned in the offer of possession dated 23.3.2017 which were not acceptable to them, or which were raised with the Opposite Parties.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the present Complaints are manifestly barred by DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 8 C.C. 155/2021 MS. LEENA NEGI VS. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. D.O.D.: 10.04.2023 limitation, since the same were filed more than three years after the offer of possession was made to the Complainants in the month of March, 2017.
17. The same are dismissed"
14. The above dicta reflects that if possession of the property in question has already been delivered to the buyer, the period of limitation begins from the date of offer of possession. On perusal of record, it is noted that the Opposite Party duly sent the Complainant an offer of possession letter dated 21.03.2017, and the present complaint is filed after more than 3 years from the date of offer of possession i.e., 10.09.2021.
15. The Complainant's reliance on the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto writ petition bearing W.P. (Civ) no. 3 of 2020 cannot be taken into consideration as the limitation period was extended from the date 15.03.2020 and the limitation period to file the present complaint was closed on 21.03.2019. Therefore, it is clear that the period of limitation to file the present complaint expired much prior to the advent of Covid- 19 pandemic.
16. Relying on the above settled law and the facts of the present case, we hold that the present complaint is barred by limitation under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the same was not filed within two years from the date of offer of possession. Consequently, the present complaint stands dismissed due to limitation with no orders as to cost.
17. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
18. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. The judgment be DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 8 C.C. 155/2021 MS. LEENA NEGI VS. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. D.O.D.: 10.04.2023 uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
19. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) J.P. AGRAWAL MEMBER (GENERAL) Pronounced On:
10.04.2023 DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 8