IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint cannot be dismissed on ground of limitation where cause of action is continuing.

D.K. Jain, President—Delay condoned.

2. This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Complainants, is directed against the order dated 15.10.2015, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in Miscellaneous Application No. MA/838/2015 in Complaint Case No. CC/265/2014. By the impugned order, while allowing the said Application, wherein the Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the Complaint on the ground of limitation, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint as barred by limitation.

3. Upon notice, the Opposite Parties are represented through their Counsel, Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh.

4. Since the controversy in the present Appeal lies in a narrow compass and is confined to the question as to whether or not the Complaint was barred by limitation, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, occasioning the filing of the Complaint, in detail. It would suffice to note that having been put in possession of the flat in question on 23.09.2000 and the conveyance deed in respect thereof having been executed in their favour, the Complainants seem to have requested Opposite Party No.1, namely, Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., a joint venture enterprise of the West Bengal Housing Board and Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., to furnish certain documents, including the Building Completion Certificate, and also to adequately compensate them for not providing an Auditorium and Health Spa in the Unnayan Complex, as promised in the brochure issued at the time of launch of the project as also in the general terms and conditions, allegedly supplied to the allottees of the flats. Having failed to elicit any positive response from the said Opposite Party, the Complainants filed the Complaint before the State Commission, praying for reliefs on several counts, as mentioned in the prayer clause therein.

5. On service of notice in the Complaint, instead of filing its Written Version, Opposite Party No.1, Respondent No.1 herein, preferred to file the afore-stated Application seeking dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that the possession of the flat having been delivered to the Complainants in the year 2000, the Complaint filed in the year 2014 was miserably barred by limitation. It is on this Application that the order impugned in this Appeal has been passed by the State Commission. Hence, the Appeal.

6. We have heard Complainant No.2, who appears in person, and Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for all the Respondents, at some length. We have also perused the Complaint and the supporting documents on record, in particular the afore-noted brochure; the general terms and conditions as also the covenants in the conveyance deed dated 26.03.2002, defining the Complex in question, viz., Udita Complex, we are of the opinion that regard being had to the nature of relief claimed in the Complaint, some part of the cause of action still continued in favour of the Complainants, even after taking possession of the flat in question and execution of the conveyance deed in respect thereof. Hence, it was not a case where the Complaint could be dismissed at the threshold even without calling upon the Opposite Parties to state their stand in respect of each of the claims made by the Complainants in the Complaint. At this juncture, we say no more lest any observation on the merits of the reliefs claimed in the Complaint may cause prejudice to either of the parties.

7. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; and the Complaint is restored to the board of the State Commission for adjudication on merits.

8. At this stage, it is pointed out that despite due service of notice in the Complaint on all the Opposite Parties, Written Versions on their behalf were not filed within the time stipulated under the Act. Mr. Chatterjee, Complainant No.2 states that in order to avoid further delay in the f