The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act must be within the statutory period of limitation, and the complaint cannot be maintained on the basis of alleged encroachments or illegal construction without involving the municipal authority.

ORDER

Mr. K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member - This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.05.2015 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint Case No. CC/329/2013 Rajat Kumar De v. M/s. Sagar Creation by which, complaint was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant entered into an agreement with the OP/respondent on 16.1.2011 for purchasing flat No. 5 on the 3rd floor, Block-A of Sreya Residency, GF 19/2, Nabapaly, Jyangra, P.S. Baguiati, Kolkata 700 059 together with a car parking space measuring 206 sq. ft. on the ground floor of Block-A for consideration of Rs.18 lakh. Upon payment of the consideration amount the deed of conveyance was registered on 1.8.2011 and possession was delivered on the same date. But the OP did not hand over the allocated portion of the car parking space physically and formally although the possession letter indicated that the car parking space was also handed over to the Complainant. The car parking spaces were not marked at that time. The complainant wrote several letters to the OP for allocating the car parking space, but to no effect. There were a number of unauthorized constructions carried out by the Developer in the said complex in violation of the Municipal Act and Rules. The complainant has prayed for passing an order directing the OP to provide fire fighting arrangement including construction of underground water reservoir having capacity of 50000 litres in order to ensure right to life of the complainant and the inmates of the said housing complex, to demolish the unauthorized construction, to provide allocated car parking space, chimney for the generator and completion certificate and to pay compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs. OP resisted complaint, denied all the material allegations raised in the complaint. It has been stated that the OP has executed and registered the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainant and delivered possession on 1.8.2011 including parking space without any objection from the complainant. The complaint is time barred as the petition of complaint was filed after lapse of more than two years from 1.8.2011. The Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality duly issued the completion certificate. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint as barred by limitation.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in spite of complaint being within limitation, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint as barred by limitation; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding complaint on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

5. It is not disputed that in pursuance to agreement for sale dated 16.1.2011, possession of flat was given by OP to complainant on 1.8.2011 and on the same day sale deed was also executed. It is also not disputed that complaint was filed on 26.12.2013, i.e., after about 2-1/2 years whereas, complaint is required to be filed within a period of 2 years. Admittedly, complainant has not filed any application under Section 24-A of C.P. Act for condonation of delay. Complainant in para 26 of the complaint has stated that cause of action arose on 8.11.2013 on which date complainant sent letter to OP for allocating car parking space whereas conveyance deed dated 1.8.2011 reflects that possession of flat along with one car parking space was given by OP to the complainant and sale deed included one car parking space. In such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, limitation can be extended by letters dated 6.7.2013 and 8.11.2011 t