Back
2010(1) CPR 14
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member and Ms. S.P. Lale, Member
Bhagwat Maruti Waghmare
& Ors. —Appellants
versus
Narmada Construction & Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 1601/2008
Decided on 20.12.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. J.M. Baphna, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Subodh Gokhale, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Belated consumer complaint can be dismissed on the ground of delay.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12(1)(c), 14,15 and 17 r/w Section 24A—Housing—Delay in filing of complaint by purchasers of flat on the ground of deficiency in service—Dismissal of complaint by District Forum on the ground of delay—Consumer complaint was filed after almost 5-6 years from receiving possession of flat—Observation of Forum below about limitation as well as non-compliance of Section 12(1)(c) justified and proper—However, award of compensation to OPs is not as per provisions of the Act-—That part of impugned order set aside-Cost of Rs. 10,000 reduced to Rs. 500 to each one of OPs—Order of dismissal maintained. (Paras 2 and 3)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member—This appeal arises out of order/award dated 14.11.2008 passed in consumer/complaint No. 26/2006, Shri Bhagwat Maruti Waghmare and Others v. M/s. Narmada Construction through its partners Shri Jawaharlal Bansilal Laddha and Others passed by District Consumer Forum, Nasik. Alleging certain deficiency in service in respect of individual flat purchasers in respect of their respective flats, clubbing their causes of action, they filed his consumer complaint. Each complainant received their respective possession in the year to 2000 and consumer complaint was filed on 14.2.2006, after the period of almost 5-6 years. Forum below holding that complaints are time- barred and, further, holding that for want of necessary permission to be taken at the time of filing the complaint as per provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) complaints are not tenable and, accordingly, dismissed the complaint. However, while dismissing the complaint, the complainant were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 each to OP Nos. 1 and 2 and also to pay cost of Rs.10,000. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the original complainants.
Heard Mr. J.M. Baphna, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Subodh Gokhale, Advocate for the respondents. Perused the record.
2. In the instant case observation of the forum below about the limitation as well as non-compliance of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act are justified and proper. Therefore, complaint was rightly dismissed. However award of the compensation to the OPs is not as per the provisions of the Act and, therefore, that part of the impugned order needs to be set aside. Further, awarding cost of Rs.10,000 is also on the higher side and unjustified, looking to the totality of the circumstances of the present case. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. Order of dismissal of the consumer complaint is maintained.
3. Impugned order directing to pay
Rs. 25,000 as compensation to each opponent Nos. 1 and 2 is set aside. Further order of awarding cost of
Rs. 10,000 is modified and instead of cost of Rs. 10,000 each one of the complainants is directed to pay Rs. 500 as costs to each one of OP Nos. 1 and 2.
4. Copies of the order are furnished to the parties.
Appeal partly allowed.
*******
