Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member
Raj Kumar —Appellant
versus
Delhi Development Authority —Respondent
First Appeal No.924 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 08/01/2019 in Complaint No. 1490/2018 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 18.3.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate Mr. Anil Jaryal, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Condonation of delay is not a matter of right.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 19 and 24-A – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 41 and 69 – Allotment of flat – Deficiency in service – Complaint against dismissed on ground of bar of limitation – Scope – Original allottee sold his allotment to complainant through a General Power of Attorney – Conveyance deed executed on 16.2.2015 – Aggrieved with charges/penalty etc., levied by Authority, complainant failed and case before State Commission on 17.12.2018, which got dismissed on ground of limitation – Appeal against filed with self-admitted delay of 104 days – Section 24-A stipulates a limitation period of two years from the date on which the cause of action arose – Cause of action arose till 17.12.2018 – Case was filed after about two years and 10 months of the date on which the cause of action arose – Since sufficient cause to condone the delay was not forthcoming, State Commission rightly dismissed the complaint in limine on ground of limitation. (Paras 5 to 14)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 08.01.2019 in Complaint No. 1490/2018 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record.
3. The instant Appeal was filed after the self-admitted delay of 104 days. We have perused the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. The reasons for delay are not explained satisfactorily. However, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.
4. On merit, brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) allotted a flat bearing No. 215 to Shri. Dalbir Singh vide letter dated 16.01.1992. The complainant was General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the allotted flat and the conveyance deed was executed in the name of the complainant. The grievance of the complainant was that the demand letter issued to him was for very high amount of Rs. 2,68,600/-. Other allottees of the same scheme were charged with the cost of construction prevailing in 1990, however, the complainant (a subsequent allottee) was given the demand letter in 1992 i.e after 21 months of the draw of lots. Therefore, the complainant was compelled to pay Rs. 11,18,848/- and the sale deed was executed on 16.02.2015. The Complainant filed a complaint before Delhi Government Mediation Centre on 22.12.16 but the matter was not settled there. Being aggrieved by the unjustified penalty imposed by DDA, a complaint was filed in the State Commission, Delhi.
5. The State Commission dismissed the complaint in limine as barred by limitation with the following observation:
5. I have gone through the material on record and heard arguments for the purpose of admission. There lies a rub in the case of the complainant. At the most cause of action arose in his favour on 16.02.15when conveyance deed was executed. Subsequent efforts for settlement through Mediation does not give rise to fresh cause of action. The limitation for filing a consumer complaint is two years under Section 24 A Consumer Protection Act. Complaint filed on 22.11.18 is bitterly barred by limitation. Complainant himself has moved an application for condonation of delay. The application does not disclose any cogent ground for condonation of delay. Law is that condoning of delay is filing complaint is a serious matter as there is no such provisions for condoning delay in filing suit in Civil Court. In this regard I have the privilege to follow the decision of National Commission in RP No. 2618/02 titled as C.H. Vithal Reddy vs. Manager District Cooperative Central bank decided on 04.12.02. The application for condonation is dismissed. With this the complaint should automatically stand dismissed as being barred by limitation.
7. Not only this, after taking possession and after execution of conveyance deed, complainant does not remain a consumer as per decision of 5 member bench of National Commission in A.N. Sehgal vs. DDA I (1996) CPJ 34. Similar view has been taken by National Commission in RP No.1128/06 titled as Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. DDA decided on 08.04.10. To the same effect is decision of National Commission in Harpal Arya vs. Housing Board II (2016) CPJ 26 and Smita Roy vs. Excel Construction II (2012) CPJ 204. (paras 5 & 7 of the State Commission’s Order)
6. Being aggrieved by the above said order, the Complainant filed this appeal.
7. We agree with the observations made by the State Commission that the complaint was barred by limitation. It is apparent that on 16/02/2015 the conveyance deed was executed in favour of the Complainant, however the consumer complaint was filed on 22/11/2018, i.e. beyond two years as limitation prescribed under Section 24 (a) of the Act, 1986.
8. The catena of ju
