Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Dipak Kumar Parshottambhai
Zala and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Shakti Builders and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.1395 to 1405 of 2017
Decided on 5.4.2018
For the Petitioners:Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Varshal M. Pancholi and Mr. Bhadresh M. Rathod, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
When the delay in filing the complaints are not explained clearly, the same are liable to be dismissed in limine.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b)—The complainant in CMA 68/2014 had purchased a row-house duplex in the residential scheme floated by the OP builder, and the possession of the said house was delivered to the complainant—The sale deed for the said property was also executed and registered in favour of the complainant—It was alleged in the complaint that were several defects found in the quality of construction made by the OP/builder, which were not rectified, despite bringing the defects to the notice of the OP builder—It was also stated that the OP/ builder had charged service tax from them without authorization, the copy of the building-use-permission had not been provided to them—Alleging these deficiencies against the OP/builder, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP/builder to pay him a sum of Rs. 12.5 lakhs as the amount required for repairing the defective construction, along with interest @ 15% per annum, refund of Rs. 60,000/- paid as service tax, refund of Rs. 80,000/- paid with interest @ 15% and a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for mental harassment besides Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost—These are batch matters and there was a delay of 206 to 729 days in filing all the complaints—O.P. filed its reply denying all the allegations and reason for inordinate delay is not explained and hence all the complaints are not maintainable on the ground of limitation—Upon hearing and perusing the documents, the delay condonation petitions were dismissed—Appeals filed against the orders were also dismissed—Hence, these revision Petitions—The averments of the appellants were not substantiated from any documentary evidence on record—The complainants have miserably failed to provide the details of any correspondence with the OP builder to get the repais rectified etc., which could lead to any justification on their part for the delay in filing the consumer complaints—Hence, it is held that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below—There is no merit in these revision petitions, therefore, and the same are dismissed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are upheld.
Result: Revision Petitions dismissed. No costs.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—The revision petitions, as detailed in the heading above, have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned orders dated 28.02.2017, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in appeals filed by the complainants/petitioners against the respondent/opposite party (OP) Shakti Builders, vide which, while dismissing all the appeals, the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad in consumer complaints filed by the petitioners before them, were dismissed and the orders passed by the District Forum, dismissing all the complaints on the ground of limitation under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act were upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the facts involved in these cases as reproduced from the consumer complaint CMA No. 68/2014 filed by Dipakkumar Parshottambhai Zala (petitioner in Revision Petition No. 1395/2017) are that the complainant purchased a row-house duplex in the residential scheme floated by the OP builder, and the possession of the said house was delivered to the complainant. The sale deed for the said property was also executed and registered in favour of the complainant. It was alleged in the consumer complaint that several defects were found in the quality of construction made by the OP builder in the house, which were not rectified, despite bringing the defects to the notice of the OP builder. It was also stated that the OP builder had charged service tax from them without authorisation. Moreover, a copy of the building-use-permission had not been provided to them. Alleging deficiency of service against the OP builder, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP builder to pay him a sum of Rs. 12.5 lakhs as the amount required for repairing the defective construction, alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. It was also stated that the amount of Rs. 60,000/- paid as service tax should also be refunded to him and a further amount of Rs. 80,000/- paid as maintenance amount should also be refunded alongwith interest @ 15%. A compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs against mental harassment was also asked for besides Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost. Similar allegations were levelled in the other complaints as well.
3. Alongwith the consumer complaints, applications for condonation of delay were also filed by the complainants. A perusal of the same reveals that there is delay of 206 to 729 days in filing the complaints mentioned above.
4. The consumer complaints were resisted by the OP builder by filing their written reply to the applications for condonation of delay, in which they stated that there was no justification for the condonation of huge delay in filing the said complaints and the same deserved to be dismissed on grounds of limitation as provided in section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act.
5. The District Forum, after considering the averments made by the parties, rejected the applications for condonation of delay, as they did not find any sufficient reasons for condoning the same. Being aggrieved against the orders of the District Forum, the complainants challenged the same by way of appeals before the State Commission. However, the said appeals were also dismissed vide impugned orders and the orders passed by the District Forum were upheld. Being aggrieved against the orders of the State Commission, the complainants are before this Commission by way of the present revision petitions.
6. During arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants stated that although the possession of the properties in question had been given by the OP builder, but there were many defects in the construction of the said houses, which were not removed, despite making requests to them from time to time. They had filed the consumer complaints alongwith applications for condonation of delay
