State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Iqbal Ahmad Isa Ahmad, vs Cidco Of Maharashtra Ltd., on 11 August, 2010
BEFORE THE HON
BEFORE THE HONBLE
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
Appeal
No.161/2009 Date of filing:
11/02/2009
In Complaint
No.148/2008 Date of order: 11/08/2010
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Thane Addl.
Shri Iqbal Ahmad Isa
Ahmad,
R/at Shivshakti Nagar,
Behind Islamiya Bakeri,
Turbhe Store, Navi
Mumbai.
..Appellant/
(Org. Complainant)
V/s.
1.
2.
The Managing Director,
The Marketing Manager,
CIDCO of Maharashtra
Ltd.,
CIDCO Bhavan, C.B.D.
Belap;ur,
Navi Mumbai 400 705.
..Respondents
(Org. Opp.Parties)
Quorum:
Shri P. N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. S. P. Lale, Honble Member.
Present:
Ms.Smita Patil, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Madhura Nadgauda, Advocate for the Respondent.
-:
ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
This appeal is filed by the original Complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the Forum below by its impugned order passed on 29/12/2010 in Consumer complaint No.148/2008. It was dismissed on the ground that the Complainant had not filed complaint within a period of limitation.(2)
Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:
Complainant had filed Consumer Complaint No.148/2008 against CIDCO alleging deficiency in service on its part. According to Complainant before CIDCO was established by Government of Maharashtra he was possessing piece of land and he was carrying on his own business of selling wooden racks. CIDCO wanted to sell piece of land for Railway Transport Project. CIDCO offered Complainant alternate land as per letter of intent on 14/05/1988. The Opposite Party had given Complainant a piece of land. However, that piece of land was not developed and therefore, by letter dated 16/08/1991 Complainant was allotted plot no.64 in sector 27 at Talawali and he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,04,643/- as premium. Complainant deposited only Rs.10,444/- upto 04/06/1992. Then on 29/10/1993 he deposited Rs.75,000/- and on 13.01.1994 he further deposited amount of Rs.16,271.95. According to Complainant, since his land was taken over by CIDCO for Railway Transport Project and he was required to move plot No.64 in sector 27 at Talawali, he was in possession of the said new plot. He had deposited certain amount with CIDCO, but, CIDCO had not executed lease agreement in his name and therefore, PlotNo.64 could not be developed. He alleged in the complaint that because of CIDCOs attitude of not executing lease agreement, he could not develop his business and he has suffered loss of Rs.25,000/-. He therefore sent legal notice on 22.04.2008 to CIDCO. CIDCO did not send any reply. Again he sent notice on 31.07.2008 and requested CIDCO to execute lease deed in his favour. No response was given by CIDCO. Hence, he filed consumer complaint and prayed that the CIDCO should be directed to execute Lease Deed of Plot No.64 of Sector 27 in his favour. He also claimed interest on the amount he has deposited with CIDCO from time to time and prayed that he should be given compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment, besides cost of the proceeding. He filed affidavit and certain documents along with the complaint.(3)
Opposite Party filed written statement and affidavit. Opposite Party also filed some documents. According to Opposite Party plot was given to the Complainant on humanitarian ground and as such Complainant cannot file consumer complaint against CIDCO. CIDCO pleaded that the Complainant was occupying the plot where CIDCO was required to erect Metropolitan Rail Transport Project, as such on humanitarian ground the Complainant was offered alternate plot bearing plot no.64 in Sector 27, Talawali, where he was required to shift. He was given letter of intent on 14th May, 1988.
As per letter of intent he was required to pay certain amount and since he had not paid the said amount the letter of intent and allotment was cancelled. Thereafter, in August, 1991 he was given fresh letter of intent, but, even then as per letter of intent the Complainant failed to deposit amount. Thereafter, again on 11.06.1993 as per order of Honble High Court the same piece of land offered to the Complainant and he was directed to deposit amount of Rs.10,174/- upto 16.07.1993. He was further directed to pay first installment of Rs.45,781.25 on or before 16.08.1993 and second installment Rs.45,781.25 on or before 16.09.1993. But, Complainant did not pay advance amount as well as premium amount as per the said letter and therefore, by sending letter dated 03.01.2000 the allotment was cancelled and the amount of advance deposit plus 25% premium had been deducted as per forfeiture clause. CIDCO pleaded that they are not guilty of deficiency in service of any kind and there cannot be demand of Complainant to execute lease deed in his favour, since he has not made payment as per letter of intent. CIDCO therefore pleaded the complaint should be dismissed with cost. CIDCO also took up the plea that complaint as filed by the Complainant is absolutely barred by limitation.(4)
Considering the documents and affidavits placed on record, Forum below categorically gave finding that the Complainant was given letter of intent on 11.06.1993. The complainant filed this complaint after the lapse of 15 years. The Forum below rightly noted that complaint is required to be filed within two years and since it was filed after the lapse of 15 years, the Forum below held that complaint as filed was absolutely barred by limitation. The Forum below also noted that the allotment of piece of land given to the Complainant had been cancelled by letter dated 03.01.2000. Even since then he should have filed the complaint, within a period of 2 years. However, he has filed this complaint as late as on 27.08.2008. Therefore, Forum below held that complaint as filed by Complainant is absolutely barred by limitation and it was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, the original Complainant has filed this appeal.
(5)We heard submissions of Ms.Smita Patil, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Madhura Nadgauda, Advocate for the Respondent.
(6)We are finding that the order passed by the Forum below to dismiss the complaint is sustainable in law. The complaint as filed by the Appellant was absolutely barred by limitation and he had not filed delay condonation application while filing the complaint. In the circumstances, we find that there is no point to take different view than what has been taken by the Forum below. There is no merit in the appeal filed by the original Complainant. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to cost.
(S.P. Lale) (P. N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member