National Consumer Disputes Redressal
V. Muthukrishnan And Ors. vs K. Ponnuswamy And Ors. on 26 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: I(2008)CPJ122(NC)
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa (President)
1. This batch of appeals is by the complainants. Their complaints alleging deficiency in the construction of their flats built by the respondent-opposite partiy Nos.1 & 2 were dismissed. Points for determination which arose out of the pleadings of the parties and as noted by the State Commission are as under:
"1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the builders opposite parties 1 & 2 and whether the claim is barred by time?
2 Whether the complaints are maintainable against the third opposite party, Corporation of Madras and to what relief, if any, are the complainant entitled?
3. Whether the claim is maintainable against the 4th opposite party, Madras metropolitan Development authority and to what relief, if any, are the complainants entitled?
4. Whether the complaints are maintainable against the 5th opposite party, Madras Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board and to what relief, if any are the complainants entitled?
5. Whether the complaints are maintainable against the six opposite party, State of Tamilnadu and to what relief if any are the complainants entitled?
2. After considering whole aspect of the matter on merit, State commission held by its impugned order dated 1st September, 1994 that admittedly the possession of the flats had been given to the complainants in May 1987 and the complaints were field only in April, May and June, 1992 nearly five years thereafter. These complaints in our view were therefore, rightly dismissed as barred by time. On another point, on consideration State Commission held that complainants were not consumer vis-a-vis Municipal Corporation of Madras. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority as well as the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board. Nothing has been pointed out to show as to how it would be said that the said Commission took a wrong view of the matter. Complaints are obvious barred by limitation. These could not be maintained. Decision of the Supreme court in the case of France B. Martuns & Anr. Vs. Mafalda maria Teresa Rodrigues -II (1999) CPJ 41 (SC) is of no help of the appellant. These appeal are therefore, dismissed. We however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.