State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajesh Chawla vs Dlf Universal Limited And Ors. on 24 June, 2024
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022
Date of Institution : 07.11.2022
Reserved on : 29.05.2024
Date of Decision : 24.06.2024
Rajesh Chawla, aged 53 years, son of Sh. Sham Sunder Chawla,
resident of A-206, R-2, DLF Hyde Park Estate, Mullanpur, New
Chandigarh, District SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab
....Complainant
Versus
1. DLF Universal Limited, having its registered office at DLF
Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, Arjun Marg, DLF City, Phase-1,
Gurugram through its Managing Director. Email(1)singh-
[email protected] (2) [email protected]
2. DLF Universal Limited, through its Project Head, DLF Hyde
Park, SCO No.188, Sector-8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
Email [email protected]
3. DLF Homes Developers Limited through its Customers
Services, The City Club, DLF Hyde Park Estate, New
Chandigarh, SAS Nagar Mohali. Email [email protected]
4. Jones Land Lasalle(JLL) through its Estate Manager, DLF
Hyde Park Estate, New Chandigarh, SAS Nagar Mohali. Email
(1) [email protected] (2) [email protected]
.....Opposite Parties
Complaint U/s 47 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019.
Quorum:-
Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by-
For the complainant : Sh. R.S. Manhas, Advocate For opposite parties No.1 to 3 : Ms. Tanika Goyal, Advocate for Sh. Kunal Dawar, Advocate For opposite party No.4 : None (defence struck off, vide order dated 01.08.2023) Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 2 KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER:-
The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, "the Act") for issuance of following directions against the OPs:-
i) to refund an amount of Rs.98,58,795/- along with interest @ 18% on account of poorest quality product delivered to the complainant and further to award interest on delayed possession of the Independent Floor No.R2-A206, First Floor, area measuring 1885 Sq. feet w.e.f. June,2016 as promised date till January,2019, when the possession was actually delivered.
ii) To pay the complainant an amount of Rs.5 lacs as compensation for causing harassment mental agony, loss of livelihood and inconvenience;
iii) to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards litigation expenses;
iv) Any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts as stated in the complaint are that OPs No.1 & 2 circulated a brochure through an advertisement with the heading 'Chandigarh Reborn' and promising therein the style and quality. Believing the advertisement, the complainant booked for allotment of one independent floor at Hyde Park Estate, New Chandigarh, Mullanpur by paying an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 31.03.2015. Thereafter, the complainant has been allotted first floor No.R2-A206FF along with two covered parking in the said project of the OPs, vide allotment letter dated 01.07.2015. An independent floor buyers agreement dated 17.07.2015 was executed between the parties, wherein schedule-3 defines the payment plan and the complainant agreed to make the payment as per the plan mentioned in Annexure-III. As per clause 11(a) of the said agreement, the Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 3 company undertook to deliver the possession of the independent floor within a period of 30 months from the date of application. The OPs vide email dated 27.05.2016 assured the complainant that tentative offer of possession would be delivered on June 2016, but they did not deliver the possession in time as promised by them. However, the complainant in view of the demand letter dated 26.04.2017, made the payment on 25.05.2017 as full and final payment for the floor in question. Thereafter, vide email dated 21.06.2017, the complainant requested the OPs to offer the possession as soon as possible after removing all the snags and rectifying the shabby work done at the floor, but the OPs without giving the possession, forwarded a bill of maintenance, which was objected by the complainant as he was not liable to make the maintenance charges without taking the possession of the floor. Thereafter, the complainant time and again approached the OPs to deliver the possession of the floor after removing the snags etc. but to no avail. However, he received a email from the OPs that the snags pointed out would be rectified by 10.09.2017 and possession would be delivered thereafter. The OPs without rectifying the snags offered the possession to the complainant and a conditional possession was given to him, but the snags were still there and OPs No.1 to 3 introduced him with one Arnav Sood, Maintenance Executive of OP No.4, who assured that the snags would be rectified and key of the floor was taken by the said maintenance executive. The complainant again requested OPs No.1 to 3 to rectify the snags as he wanted to shift from Mumbai to Chandigarh. Thereafter on Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 4 22.11.2017, the complainant again visited the site along with the official of OPs and pointed out the condition of the floor as there was no progress as promised earlier. The OPs assured that they will set everything right by 30th November, 2017, but the officials of the OPs did not bother to rectify the snags as pointed out in the joint visit. Ultimately, again a conditional possession was offered and taken by the complainant on 16.05.2018, who again pointed out that the snags again resurfaced and the OPs had done nothing. The complainant also clicked pictures to show that the building was in poor condition and as to how the possession could be taken. Thereafter, the key of the floor was again handed over to the maintenance executive of OP No.4. The complainant kept on requesting the OPs number of times, but nothing fruitful was done despite assuring that the snags would be rectified by 11th December, 2018. Finally, the complainant was given possession of the floor in question in February 2019 after rectifying the snags, but the same was an eye-wash as the quality of construction is very poor and it again resurfaced after few months. After taking the possession, the complainant decided to give the floor on rent to a tenant to cover up the loss that occurred due to the delayed possession. The tenants of the complainant moved in the floor in March, 2019 and as after possession, the responsibility of maintenance was of OP No.4, but it started giving poor service. The tenant pointed out that certain power plugs were not working, lift was not working from June to August and there were broken doors. The complainant sent an email to OP No.4 along with the pictures of broken door jams, leakage from the tanks Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 5 and damage to the building. Thereafter, the complainant also informed through emails to OP No.4 as well as OPs No.1 to 3 about the cracking compound wall sinking floor, filth in the compound and the damage terrace door but the emails were blocked by the OPs. The tenants residing in the floor decided to leave due to poorest quality and poor maintenance of the floors. Thereafter, the complainant himself along with his family moved in the floor in the month of October, 2020 and then he again approached the OPs regarding poor maintenance as well as the quality of work. He also informed the Director, DLF about the pathetic construction and the irresponsible and unprofessional behavior of the officials at DLF, but nothing has been heard from them. The complainant alleged that the construction quality is so poor that it cannot be rectified and even the building has weakened due to lot of seepage, which was not cured at all. The complainant again requested OP No.3 that their rectification work was also of poorest quality and since possession, he has been suffering due to the poor quality of work as well as poor services rendered by them, but despite the numerous requests, nothing fruitful was done. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint and sought relief as prayed for.
3. The OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint. OPs No.1 to 3 filed joint written reply, wherein they raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the same is barred by Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as per which this Commission shall Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 6 not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen; the complainant is guilty of 'suggestiofalsi' and 'suppressioveri' and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone; the complainant neither has any cause of action nor any locus standi to maintain the present complaint against the OPs; the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands; the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' under the consumer protection act; the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Ors. On merits, OPs No. 1 to 3 have stated that on 17.07.2015, the Floor Buyer's Agreement was executed between the OPs and complainant with respect to the floor in question. The possession of the said floor was offered after completing all the development of the said project and after receiving of Partial Completion Certificate, which was issued/granted by the Appropriate Authority only when all the criteria stipulated in the notification issued by the Government of Punjab, had been fulfilled and complied with. The OPs vide offer of possession dated 26.04.2017 requested the complainant to remit the balance amount as stated in the final statement of account and complete necessary formalities to enable them to deliver the possession of the unit. The OPs further stated that numerous consumer complaints were filed earlier by allottees pertaining to the same project, on the ground that all facilities and amenities necessary for full and efficient use and enjoyment were not available Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 7 at the time when possession was offered to them and the said controversy was settled by Hon'ble National Commission in FA/1340/2016 titled as 'Vineet Kumar & Anr. Vs. M/s DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr.' decided vide order dated 13.02.2019. The OPs further stated that for the upkeep and maintenance of the facilities and amenities at the project site they had entered into an Integrated Asset & Facility Management Agreement with M/s Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL)-OP No.4, who is responsible for providing various services to the residents of the township. The complainant is seeking refund of the amount deposited with the OPs along with interest, however, when the project has been completed and its possession has already been offered on 26.04.2017 and the complainant has already taken possession of the floor then the complainant is entitled to delayed possession charges, if any, and not refund. The complainant himself chose to buy a floor in the Project and only after satisfying himself, he had initially applied for allotment of the Floor out of his own free will and without any influence. The allottees cannot take the benefit of a particular clause and at the same time, deny being bound by the very same clause. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs No. 1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua them.
4. Upon notice OP No.4 appeared through counsel and vide order dated 08.02.2023, OP No.4 was allowed to file written statement subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, which was to be paid to learned counsel for the complainant. However, OP No.4 Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 8 failed to pay the said cost, as such, its defence was struck off vide order dated 01.08.2023.
5. In order to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant annexed with the complaint his affidavit along with copies of documents i.e. brochure Ex. C-1, email along with the tentative floor plan and payment plan Ex.C-2, email dated 29.05.2015 Ex. C-3, email dated 02.07.2015 Ex.C-4, agreement dated 17.07.2015 Ex.C-5, communications with the OPs regarding agitating his grievance through emails and photographs Ex.C-6 to C-30.
6. On the other hand, OPs No.1 to 3 have filed affidavit of Sh. Vinod Kumar, authorized representative along with copies of documents i.e. merger order annexure OP-1, board resolution annexure OP-2, application form annexure OP-3, allotment letter annexure OP-4, floor buyer agreement annexure OP-5, partial completion certificate annexure OP-6, offer of possession and possession taken annexure OP-7, copies of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court and National Commission annexure OP-8 to OP-12.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No.1 to 3 and have gone through the record carefully. None has turned up on behalf of OP No.4 for arguments.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that as per clause 11(a) of the agreement, OPs No.1 to 3 had undertaken to deliver the possession of the independent floor in question within a period of 30 months from the date of application, Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 9 therefore, the possession of the floor was required to be delivered within the stipulated period. However, they did not deliver the possession as promised and raised a demand for payment of full amount. The complainant made the payment on 25.05.2017 as full and final payment and thereafter he along with representative of the company visited the floor and noticed that it was having lots of snags and shabby work and was in a very critical and non-livable condition. The learned counsel further argued that the OPs have assured the complainant that they would remove all the snags and deliver the possession as soon as possible. The complainant wanted to shift in his flat, so he repeatedly requested OPs to rectify the snags but the OPs time and again assured the complainant that needful would be done. However, they did not bother to rectify the snags as pointed out by the complainant. Finally, the complainant was given possession in the end of February, 2019 by rectifying the snags, but this too is of no avail as the same was an eye-wash because the quality of construction is very poor and same again resurface after few months. The said offer of possession was not in accordance with the agreement between the parties and therefore cannot be considered as valid offer of possession. The learned counsel has submitted that the acts and omission and commission on the part of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, for which the complainant is entitled for the relief as sough for in the prayer clause of the complaint. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint and prayed for acceptance of the present complaint.
Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 10
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs No. 1 to 3 has submitted that the possession of the floor in question was offered to the complainant on 26.04.2017 and thus cause of action if any would start from the said date. As per section 69 of the of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, limitation for filing complaint is 2 years from the date of cause of action. The limitation to file the present complaint expired on 26.04.2019, whereas the same was filed on 07.11.2022 i.e. after a delay of 3 years 7 months, which is barred by limitation. The learned counsel further argued that the possession of the said floor was offered after completing all the development of the said project and after receiving of Partial Completion Certificate. The learned counsel further argued that for upkeep and maintenance of the facilities and amenities at the project site OPs No.1 to 3 had entered into an Integrated Asset & Facility Management Agreement with OP No.4, hence they are not providing any services to the complainant. In fact, OP No.4 is responsible to provide various services to residents of the township. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied on the judgments of Hon'ble National Commission, in the case of 'Avtar Singh Chauhan Vs. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Anr.' in CC No.789 of 2020 decided on 02.03.2023 and 'DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satish Goyal & Anr'. in FA/303/2021 dated 07.10.2023. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as 'DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S.Dhanda', Civil Appeals Nos.4910-4941 of 2019 @ SLP(c) Nos.3623-3654 of Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 11 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No.1 to 3.
12. Admittedly, the complainant, vide application form dated 25.06.2015 applied for booking of an independent floor in Hyde Park Estate, New Chandigarh, Mullanpur along with booking amount of Rs.6,00,000/-,Annexure OP-3. Thereafter, vide allotment letter dated 01.07.2015, annexure OP-4, the OPs allotted the floor bearing No.R2-A-206-FF to the complainant in the said project. Subsequently, the independent Floor Buyer's agreement with definitive terms and conditions was executed between the parties on 17.07.2015, annexure OP-5. It is also an admitted fact that vide letter dated 26.04.2017, annexure OP-7, the OPs offered possession of the floor in question to the complainant. The main grievance of the complainant, as pleaded in the complaint, is that the OPs did not deliver the possession of the floor in a livable condition and the same was taken by him under compelling circumstances with a number of snags and seepage in the building. The complainant has been raising his grievance with the OPs through emails, which are also placed on record by him. The complainant further alleged that the OPs had assured him that all the snags would be rectified but nothing had been done, as such, he is not interested in keeping the floor and is entitled for refund of amount paid by him to the tune of Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 12 Rs.98,58,795/-. Alleging deficiency in service for not removing the snags, the complainant has filed the present complaint and sought relief as prayed for.
13. The foremost and preliminary objection raised by OPs No.1 to 3 is that the complaint is barred by limitation as the complainant has filed the present complaint after a delay of 3 years 7 months. The learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 has submitted that Floor Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 17.07.2015 and possession to the complainant was offered vide letter dated 26.04.2017, as such the limitation to file the present complaint expired on 26.04.2019. On the other hand, the case of the complainant is that without rectifying the snags, as pointed out by the complainant, OPs No.1 to 3 has given the conditional possession with the assurance that the snags would be rectified, but they failed to rectify the same. The complainant has further submitted that he has been agitating his grievance continuously through emails etc. with the OPs, therefore, there is a recurrent cause of action and the possession cannot be considered as a valid offer of possession. To determine the said legal point we have perused the pleadings as well as evidence placed on record by the parties and have also gone through the case law cited by the parties. As per clause 11(a) of the Independent Floor Buyer's Agreement dated 17.07.2015, Ex.C-5, OPs No.1 to 3 were to complete the construction of the said independent floor within a period of 30 months from the date of the application. The said clause is reproduced as under:- Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 13
"11(a) Schedule for possession of the Said Independent Floor:
The Company based on its present plans and estimates and subject to all just exceptions, endeavors to complete construction of the said Independent Floor within a period of thirty (30) months from the date of the Application unless there shall be delay or failure due to reasons mentioned in Clause 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of the Allottee to pay in time the Total Price and other charges, taxes, deposits, securities etc. and dues/payments or any failure on the part of the allottee to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of this agreement."
The complainant applied for allotment of floor in question on 25.06.2015, therefore, the OPs were to complete the construction of the said floor and to offer the possession of the same within 30 months i.e. till 25.12.2017. OPs No.1 to 3 have categorically stated in their reply that they received the Partial Completion Certificate from the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA on 10.09.2014, which is granted only when all the criteria stipulated in the notification issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Government of Punjab have been fulfilled and complied with. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 that all the basic amenities were in place otherwise the competent authority would not have issued the partial completion certificate. We have perused the Partial Completion Certificate, placed on record by the OPs as annexure OP-6 and find that the said certificate has been issued to the OPs in respect of Mega Residential Project DLF Hyde Park Estate (198.34 acre) in Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, wherein the said unit/floor has been allotted to the complainant. Now, question arises whether the OPs have offered the possession of the unit/floor in question within the Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 14 stipulated period as per the terms of the Independent Floor Buyer's agreement or not? As discussed above, the stipulated period for completing the construction work as well as offering the possession was till 25.12.2017. However, from the perusal of annexure OP-7 i.e. offer of possession letter dated 26.04.2017, we find that OPs have made the offer for possession for Residence No.HPE-IF-R2-A206- FF on 26.04.2017 i.e. well before the stipulated period and have requested the complainant to remit the balance amount due and payable by him. The OPs have also sent the final statement of account as on 24.04.2017 for remitting the balance payment. It is the complainant's own submission that he paid the entire payment on 25.05.2017 as full and final for the independent floor in question and the same has been acknowledged by the OPs vide Ex. C-8. Further perusal of document dated 12.08.2017 attached with annexure OP-7 shows that the actual physical possession of the independent floor in question was taken by the complainant on 12.08.2017 and the said document was duly signed by him. Even the handing and taking over certificate has also been signed by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that in all these entire set of documents, the complainant has nowhere mentioned that he is taking the possession of the said unit/floor under protest or it is a conditional offer of possession. At this stage, we are of the considered opinion that although the complainant has made various representations to the OPs vide various emails Ex. C-6 to C-30 for delay in possession as well as removal of snags, but his main grievance was with regard to rectification of snags only as possession of the unit/floor has Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 15 already been taken over by him, which as is evident from the perusal of email dated 04.10.2017 sent by the complainant to the OPs. The relevant portion of the email dated 04.10.2017 is reproduced as under:-
"Dear Madam, Thank you very much for your time today & all the support so far.
I took over the premises.
Mr. Sood always extend good support. So, major things were addressed but quite a few still not. May be minor in some terms but certainly NOT the DLF Quality/ Pl ref. to the pics attached & suggest you show them to your accounts team (who are just looking at interest charges), Sales guys & Higher Management people.
The problematic areas are clearly visible. Mr. Sood, as always supportive, has assured to get these addressed too so one main door key is left with him. For your information & record."
In the present case, the complainant has failed to establish that OPs have not provided the basic amenities and facilities, which were essentially required for use and enjoyment of the flats and have not completed the construction work of the building/floor in question and also not offered the possession within the stipulated time period as mentioned in the Independent Floor Buyer's Agreement. We are unable to find any cogent evidence to establish the stand of the complainant that he has accepted the offer of possession under protest or that it was a conditional acceptance. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that there is no delay on the part of the OPs, so far as the time line with regard to the offer of possession, which was duly offered by the OPs on 26.04.2017 within the stipulated time frame and accepted by him on 12.08.2017 after paying the remaining dues. The complainant has relied on the Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 16 judgment of Hon'ble National Commission passed in the Revision Petition No.3285 of 2015 decided on 09.11.2020 in the case of 'Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas Bansal', wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "though the possession was offered vide letter dated 05.01.2012, the internal services having not been completed by that times, the said offer was not in accordance with the agreement between the parties and therefore cannot be considered as valid offer of possession and complainant had a recurrent cause of action to institute the consumer complaint." But we are of the considered opinion that the said observation of Hon'ble National Commission is not applicable in the present case, as in the cited authority only offer of possession was given to the complainant and the actual physical possession was not taken by the complainant, whereas in the present complaint the actual physical possession has already been taken by the complainant.
14. Now, we proceed to decide the preliminary objection raised by the OPs qua limitation for filing the present complaint. As per section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, limitation for filing the complaint is 2 years from the date of cause of action. The relevant part of section 69 is reproduced as under:-
"69. Limitation Period.
(1) The District Commission, 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-Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 17
section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."
It has been duly established on record vide Ex. C-8 that OPs No.1 to 3 had offered the possession of the floor in question to the complainant on 26.04.2017. Thus, the limitation period of 2 years for the purpose of Section 69 of the Act began to run from 26.04.2017 and expired on 26.04.2019. We are fortified by the judgment relied upon by the OPs, passed by Hon'ble National Commission in CC/789/2020 titled as 'Avtar Singh Chauhan Vs. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Anr' decided on 02.03.2023, wherein it has been observed that the limitation period would start from the date of offer of possession and compensation for delayed delivery of possession would be tenable till the date of offer of possession after receiving the occupation certificate and not till the date of delivery of possession. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"13. On an overall consideration of the ration of all the decisions referred above, it becomes crystal clear that any claim on account of delayed possession would be tenable only till the date of "offer of possession", but of course, after the occupancy certificate has been received by the Builder/Developer. There is no entitlement of an allottee for such compensation "till the date of delivery of possession" as the Builder's liability ends once he makes the offer of possession. Further, as we have already seen, some orders which had directed that such delayed compensation was payable till the date of actual possession, were themselves modified not only by the Hon'ble Apex Court, but also by the Principal Bench of this Commission, and the compensation was found payable only "till the date of offer of possession"Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 18
after having received the Occupancy Certificate. This would mean that the cause of action qua the complainants would commence from the date of offer of possession and not from any subsequent date such as that of the actual delivery of possession."
15. The case of the complainant is that after offering of possession of the floor in question he has been continuously raising his grievance with the OPs vide various emails regarding delay in possession and non rectification of snags and seepage etc. in the building. Be that as it may, no doubt the complainant has been raising his grievance with the OPs qua delay in possession as well as non rectification of snags in the floor, but it is a settled principle of law that representations do not extend the period of limitation. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant vide email dated 04.10.2017(Supra) admitted that 'he took over the premises' and further in para No.24 of his complaint he mentioned that 'finally the complainant was given possession in the end of February, 2019 by rectifying the snags'. However, it has been duly established by the OPs that they offered the possession on 26.04.2017 and the actual physical possession of the said unit/floor was taken by the complainant on 12.08.2017 as discussed above. At this stage, even for the sake of arguments, if the version of the complainant is to be believed that the actual physical possession has been taken by him in the month of February 2019, even then the cause of action to file the present complaint would arise from that period and the present complaint was to be filed within 2 years i.e. till February 2021. However, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 07.11.2022, which is also beyond the limitation period and he has Consumer Complaint No.74 of 2022 19 been agitating his grievance qua rectification of the snags only, whereas he prayed for refund of the entire deposited amount as well as interest of delayed possession and compensation at this belated stage. Even the complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay for filing the present complaint after expiry of the limitation period. Accordingly, the present complaint is barred by limitation in view of section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act and is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.
16. A sequel to our above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation, with no orders as to costs.
17. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(H.P.S.MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER June 24, 2024 dv