IMPORTANT POINT
Mandatory Condonation of Delay – Section 24A is a legislative mandate. If a complaint is filed after the expiry of two years, the Complainant must satisfy the Forum that there was “sufficient cause” for the delay. In the absence of a condonation application or valid justification, the Forum is duty-bound to dismiss the complaint.

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member.—We propose to dispose of preliminary objection raised by opposite party challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of limitation.

2. In brief, complainant booked a 3 BHK flat in “The Corridors”, Sector 67A, Gurgaon for total basic sale price of Rs.1,62,30,886/-. Payment of Rs.16,50,000/- was made against the booking amount vide cheque dated 22.03.2013. A receipt against the same was issued on 06.04.2013 and an acknowledgement dated 13.04.2013 was also issued by the opposite party. A request for further payment of Rs.16,96,486/- was made by opposite party vide letter dated 14.04.2013 which was paid by the complainant vide cheque dated 18.05.2013. The Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was forwarded by the opposite party on 12.03.2014. Further, towards the third instalment for payment of Rs.19,96,928/- a request letter was forwarded by the opposite party on 18.03.2014 against which the complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- on 10.06.2014. Thereafter, the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement of Unit No.CD-A10-07-704 was forwarded by the opposite party on 10.07.2014. A termination/cancellation letter dated 17.11.2014 was forwarded by the opposite party forfeiting the entire amount except for refund of Rs.3,74,487/-, on account of failure of the complainant to pay the pending dues. However, complainant claims to have further deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with the opposite party in August, 2015 (as clarified in the rejoinder).

3. As per the complainant, since opposite party failed to complete the project within 42 months from the date of approval and there was delay in construction, he approached the office of opposite party for refund which was dilly-dallied on various grounds. As such, the present complaint dated 23.07.2018 was filed for refund of total paid amount of Rs.53,46,4986/- along with interest @ 24% p.a., compensation and cost.

4. In the written version, opposite party submitted that construction of “The Corridors” at Sector 67A, Gurgaon on area measuring 37 acres is being carried in a phased manner for construction of approximately 1456 apartments. Out of same, 700 apartments in various towers are ready to move in and occupation certificate had already been applied and clarifications rendered to Director General, Town & Country Planning, Haryana (DGTCP, Haryana) vide letters dated 20.07.2017, 21.07.2017, 28.05.2018 and 05.07.2018. The competent authority accordingly issued occupation certificate for the completed towers on 31.05.2019. The project is also stated to be registered with Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

On merits, it is submitted that the unit allotted to complainant had been cancelled on account of continuous default in payment of instalments. Complainant is stated to have defaulted in payment of third instalment requested vide letter dated 18.03.2014 on commencement of excavation which was payable by 09.04.2014. Further, the instalments remained unpaid despite reminders dated 13.04.2014 and 04.05.2014. A partial sum of Rs.10,00,000/- is stated to have been paid belatedly on 10.06.2014 against the instalment of Rs.19,96,928/-.

A notice dated 29.08.2014 is stated to have been finally issued to the complainant and on failure to make the payment, the unit was cancelled vide letter dated 17.11.2014. Out of total paid amount of Rs.43,46,486/- a sum of Rs.34,09,417/- was forfeited in accordance with terms and conditions of agreement. Further, after deducting service tax and delayed interest, Rs.3,74,487/- is stated to be refundable. In view of breach of contract by the complainant, the action is claimed to have been taken in accordance with law. The complaint preferred on 23.07.2018 is further stated to be barred by limitation as the same was filed beyond period of two years from the date of cause of action which could not be stretched beyond 17.11.2014 (i.e. date of issue of cancellation letter).

5. In the rejoinder to the reply filed by the opposite party, com