The starting point of limitation for consumer complaints is crucial, and unreasonable delay in filing a complaint can lead to dismissal.

ORDER

K. Sampath, President - The opposite parties in O.P. No. 171/2000 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (North) are the appellants herein.

2. The case of the complainant was as follows: The complainant was the absolute owner of the flat in second floor, 254/11, Pioneer Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai. He took possession on 31.12.1984. The sale deed was executed on 9.10.1995. Even at the time of taking possession, the roof was defective. The leakage was found during rainy season. The opposite parties did plastering work earlier. During 1996, the opposite parties did some weathering course. In 1999 the roof completely collapsed and the complainant had to vacate the flat. On 16.6.1999 he gave a representation. The Junior Engineer came and prepared estimate. There was no further response from the opposite parties and the complaint came to be filed.

3. The opposite parties took the stand that the claim was hopelessly barred by limitation. Whenever defects were brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties, they had done repair works. The repairs had occurred due to poor maintenance of the flat and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4. Before the District Forum, the complainant marked Ex. A1 to A4 and the opposite parties filed Ex. B1 and Exs. B2 and Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 were marked as Court documents.

5. On the basis of the Commissioner's report and plan, the District Forum held that the building was in an unsound and weakened condition and structurally unsafe; that all defects were due to the poor construction and there was deficiency in service and by order dated 7.1.2003 directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards compensation with cost of Rs. 1,000.

6. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

7. Mr. S. Rajakumar, learned Counsel for the opposite parties/appellants submitted as follows : Lease cum sale agreement was entered into in 1985. The sale deed was executed on 9.10.1995. The complainant gave a representation only on 16.6.1999 after a lapse of 14 years. The District Forum ought to have held that this was clearly barred by limitation. Further as per Clause 22 of the lease cum sale agreement the complainant knew fully well about the nature of construction and the condition of the building and still took possession of the flat. It was too late for the complainant to complain. The District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint.

8. Per contra Mr. V. Balaji, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the Commissioner had given a proper report. There was no objection filed to the Commissioner's Report by the opposite parties. The allegation that the building was in a dangerous condition stood unchallenged. Further it was not open to the opposite parties to plead limitation. In any event, the starting point of limitation was 16.6.1999, the date on which the complainant issued notice. Counsel also relied on a number of decisions in support of his stand.

9. The dates are relevant. On 31.12.1984 the opposite parties allotted the flat to the complainant. The complainant took possession on 23.2.1985. Lease cum sale agreement was executed on 16.3.1985. The sale deed was executed on 9.10.1995. 14 years from 1985, on 16.6.1999 the complainant gave a representation alleging defects. We have already noticed that the very case of the complainant was that even from the date of taking possession, there was serious problem in the property that the roof was defective. We wonder as to what the complainant was doing if at the time of his taking possession the construction was found to be defective and posed danger that it would fall down. 14 years had passed by. The complainant gave a notice on 16.6.1999. According to the Counsel, that would be the starting point of limitation. We are unable to agree. The staring point of limitation is the date of taking possession. If there had been serious defects, during the seasonal rains, the problem would have got exposed.