IMPORTANT POINT
Refund of amount not warranted since complaint is barred by limitation.

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—No one is present for the complainant/respondent no.1 who was proceeded exparte vide order dated 07.11.2017.

The complainant in this matter namely Girdharbhai Nemchand Shah filed a Consumer Complaint in the year 2000, alleging therein that Late Sh. Suresh Bhai N. Patel who was carrying the business under the name & style of ‘S.P. Builders’, advertised for sale of residential flats in a housing scheme namely ‘Dev Apartments’ in Navrangpura, in the year 1979. According to him, he visited the site where the work was going on and was informed by Late Sh. Suresh Bhai N. Patel that the cost of the flat would be Rs.1,50,000/- including the cost of land. According to the complainant, he paid Rs.61,000/- by cheques and the balance amount in cash. According to him, the construction was left incomplete and therefore, he had to occupy the incomplete flat in May 1982. He also claimed to have incurred expenditure of Rs.77,009/- on completing the work which the builder had left incomplete. He approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking several reliefs including payment of Rs.77,009/- from the builders.

2. The complaint was resisted by the builder who stated in their written version that they were concerned only with the construction of the flat and had nothing to do with its land component. It was also stated in their written version that only Rs.61,000/- were paid to them by the complainant and they had executed work to the extent payment was received by them, before they were thrown out by the complainant.

3. The land owners who were impleaded as OP No.3 & 4 in the Consumer Complaint, also contested the Consumer Complaint on several grounds.

4. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 27.04.2012, partly allowed the complaint by directing the builders to pay the amount of Rs.77,009/- to the complainants alongwith interest and compensation quantified at Rs.25,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.20,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellants/builders are before this Commission. The complainant has not challenged the order passed by the State Commission and the said Commission has not allowed the Consumer Complaint against the land owners.

5. As noted earlier, the Consumer Complaint was instituted in the year 2000. Though the complainant has not specified on which date the deficient work was completed by him, he has specifically alleged in the Consumer Complaint that the incomplete flat was occupied by him in May 1982. A perusal of the complaint would show that he has claimed interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.77,009 with effect from the year 1982. It is therefore, evident that the expenditure of Rs.77,009/- which the complainant claimed from the appellants, was incurred by him by the end of the year 1982. The Consumer Complaint having been instituted in the year 2000, was patently barred by limitation as prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, on the date it was instituted. Since the Consumer Complaint was barred by limitation, I need not examine the order passed by the State Commission on its merit. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside with no order as to costs.

The amount, if any, deposited by the appellants in compliance of the order of the State Commission, be refunded to them, alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount.