ORDER

S.T. Barne, Judicial Member—Complainant-Mr.Dilipkumar Bhupatlal Doshi has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by alleging deficiency in service against opponents. Complainant is consumer. Opponent No.1 is a Proprietary Firm. Opponent No.2 is the Proprietor of opponent No.1. Opponent No.1 is engaged in the business of construction of building and development of plots. Opponent No.3 is the Society which had appointed opponent No.1 for redevelopment of the plot in which the complainant had booked a flat.

2. Facts giving rise to present complaint in short are as under:—

Complainant was searching for residential flat and during search he came to know that opponent No.1 was redeveloping a project named as “Udyam Kunj” at Udaym Kunj CHS Ltd. Off. Rani Sati Marg, Opp. Navjivan School, Navjivan School Road, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097. Opponents lured the complainant to purchase a flat bearing No.402 on 4th floor, admeasuring 520 sq.ft. carpet area, ‘A’ wing in the said project for total consideration of Rs.19,50,000/-. Opponent No.1 through opponent No.2 issued allotment letter to complainant. Complainant paid amount of Rs.15,60,000/- through cheques to opponent No.1 towards consideration of said flat. Opponent No.1 had issued receipts of payment on 05/01/2010 and issued allotment letter. As per clause No.5 of the allotment letter, balance amount of Rs.3,90,000/- should be paid at the time of possession of the flat. Opponent No.1 agreed to execute agreement for sale on making payment of earnest money amounting to Rs.15,60,000/-.

3. It is alleged that the opponents were under statutory obligation to execute and register the agreement of sale when opponents had received 80% of total agreed consideration. Opponents failed to hand over possession of booked flat within 18 months from the date of booking. In the month of June 2010 complainant made a telephone call to opponent No.2 for knowing the progress. It was informed that TDR work is in progress. Again in October 2010, complainant contacted opponent No.2 and also to Architect Mr.Bhikubhai to know the progress. In spite of several meetings opponent No.2 ignored to execute agreement of sale and to hand over possession of flat. On 06/01/2014 it was informed to complainant that due to some technical defects, agreement for sale shall take further time. Meanwhile, the complainant came to know that opponent No.2 has allotted some flats to members of opponent No.3 and registration process was completed. According to complainant he had booked a flat in January 2010. Opponent No.1 promised to hand over possession of flat within 18 months from the date of booking. Complainant was supposed to receive possession of the flat by July 2011. Opponent No.1 did not hand over possession of booked flat to the complainant and failed to perform statutory and contractual obligations. Looking to the irresponsible and callous attitude of opponent No.2, the complainant constrained to take legal recourse. Complainant therefore filed consumer complaint against opponents by alleging deficiency in service.

4. Opponent Nos.1 & 2 have resisted the consumer complaint by filing written version and denied all adverse allegations. It is specifically denied that the opponent Nos.1&2 are guilty of deficiency in service. It is submitted that consumer complaint is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. It is not filed within a period of two years from the date of time period performance of alleged terms of allotment. Commencement Certificate for the plinth level was granted by MCGM on 31/03/2011 and plinth work was completed on or before 01/08/2011. The cause of action for the complainant arose within two years from plinth completion period, after 75 days from date of completion of plinth work. Complaint should have been filed within two years from the said plinth c