Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President—We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on hearing the appellant who is appearing in person and the Advocate for the respondent who is present in response to our notice before admission issued by us earlier in this appeal and on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book.

2. At the outset, we wish to clarify that we do not propose to dilate over the factual matrix as obtained in the matter herein since prima facie, we are satisfied that it is a fit case which must be probed by the District Forum in detail since District Forum has proceeded to dismiss the complaint with a view that claim therein was barred by Law of Limitation. However, as will be pointed out hereinafter the District Forum is not right in its said perception.

(For brevity’s sake appellant-org. complainant is hereinafter referred to as ‘Flat Purchaser’ and respondent-org. O.P. as ‘Builder’).

3. The Flat Purchaser is the appellant in this case who has filed this appeal challenged the order dated 19th November, 1999 passed by District Forum Raigad dismissing his complaint with a view that the same was barred by limitation.

4. It is noticed that deal in question between the Flat Purchaser and the Builder dates back to somewhere in the year 1995. The Flat Purchaser booked a flat in the Housing Complex of the Builder at Panvel for residential accommodation and on 12th April, 1995 paid sum of Rs. 10,000/- by cheque followed by another payment of Rs. 45,000/- on 1st June, 1995 and thus it would be noticed that total amount paid by the Flat Purchaser to the Builder amounting to Rs. 55,000/- and Builder has also issued the receipts. Copies whereof have been annexed to the complaint.

5. It is case of the complainant-Flat Purchaser that the Builder assured him to give the possession in the year 1997. However, he has alleging in his complaint that he did not notice any progress in the construction nor the Builder has completed the documentation process as required under the Statute such as execution of agreement, etc.

6. He, therefore, filed a complaint in a form of letter addressed to District Forum being dated 25th August, 1998.

7. We have perused the said complaint and it needs to be stated that Flat Purchaser-complainant has filed the said complaint by addressing the letter to the District Forum and requested for justice. It is obvious that Flat Purchaser-complainant was not assisted by any Lawyer or any one familiar with the working of Consumer Fora. Nonetheless, factual aspects sufficiently hinted out in the complaint.

8. If one reads the complaint, there was a clear averment made and indication given that Builder had not handed over the possession of the flat.

9. That being so, District Forum was not justified in holding the claim of the complainant was barred by Law of Limitation.

10. It is well settled position of the law, if the Flat Purchaser approached the District Forum alleging deficiency against the Builder and one of the deficiencies is non-delivery of the possession, then the cause of action would stand continues till the possession is made over.

11. In view of the settled position of law as above, the findings rendered by the District Forum vide its impugned order that the claim of the complainant-Flat Purchaser was barred by Law of Limitation cannot be sustained.

12. We, therefore, allow this appeal and remand this matter to the District Forum for consideration afresh on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Law and the Rules on the footing that complaint filed by the Flat Purchaser-complainant is well within time.

ORDER

1. Appeal is allowed and its impugned order dated 19th November, 1999 is set aside and matter is remitted to the District Forum Raigad.

2. District Forum Raigad is ordered and directed to dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Law and the Rules and on giving proper opportunities to the parties.

3. Office shall furnish