SOUMEN ROY & ANR. vs PLATINUM DEALER PRIVATE LIMITED & 6 ORS.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL NO. 646 OF 2023
(Against the Order dated 02/05/2023 in Complaint No. 33/2023 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. SOUMEN ROY & ANR.
SON OF LATE GOUR HARI ROY, RESIDING AT 73 SISIR BHADURI SARANI, P.S. AMHERST STREET
KOLKATA-700006
2. RITA ROY
W/O SRI SOUMEN ROY, 73 SISIR BHADURI SARANI, P.S. AMHERST STREET
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. PLATINUM DEALER PRIVATE LIMITED & 6 ORS.
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR REGISTERED OFFICE: - 86 A, TOPSIA ROAD, SOUTH, 9 FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700046
2. DEVRAJ AGARWAL
DIRECTOR OF PLATINUM DEALER (P) LTD SHROFF CHEMICALS (P) LTD AND SRTR REALTORS (P) LTD., 86 A, TOPSIA ROAD SOUTH, 9 FLOOR
3. ANITA AGARWAL
DIRECTOR OF PLATINUM DEALER PVT LTD OF 86 A, TOPSIA ROAD, SOUTH, 9 FLOOR
4. SHROFF CHEMICALS PVT LTD
REP, BY DIRECTOR REGISTERED OFFICE 86 A, TOPSIA ROAD, SOUTH 9 FLOOR,
5. PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL
DIRECTOR SHROFF CHEMICALS PVT LTD OF 86A, TOPSIA ROAD, SOUTH 9 FLOOR
6. SRTR REALTORS PVT LTD
REP BY DIRECTOR. OFFICE AT 86A, TOPSIA ROAD, SOUTH, 9 FLOOR
7. MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL
DIRECTOR OF SRTR REALTORS PVT LTD OF 86A, TOPSIA ROAD, SOUTH, 9 FLOOR
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
&nbsp
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT :
MR. AMARNATH SANYAL, ADVOCATE
Dated : 21 June 2023

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: MR. AMARNATH SANYAL
For the Respondent:

ORDER

Heard counsel for the appellants.

The above appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal dated 02.05.2023 passed in CC/33/2023 whereby the complaint was dismissed as time barred. In the complaint following prayers have been made:-

a. An order directing the opposite parties jointly and/or severally to execute the register deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants in respect of the subject property which is morefully described in the schedule A below;

b. An order directing the opposite parties to refund the TDS amounting to Rs.92950/- to the complainant along with 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization;

c. An order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for deficiency of service and also for unfair trade practice;

d. An order directing the opposite parties to pay litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant;

e. An order of attachement;

f. Interest pendent lite;

g. Any other consequential relief or relief the complainants are entitled in law and in equity.

So far as prayer for directing the opposite party to execute the registered deed of conveyance is concerned it is of the nature of continuing wrong as provided under Section 22 of Limitation Act, 1963. Supreme Court Samruddhi Co-Opeartive Housing Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction 2022 SCC Online SC 35 held that in case of continuing the cause of action, the limitation is not started unless the right is denied by the opposite party. In view of the aforesaid discussions the order of the State Commission is liable to the set aside.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The order of the State Commission dated 02.05.2023 passed in CC/33/2023 is set aside. The State Commission is directed to admit the complaint to its original number and decide in accordance with law.

..................................................J

RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA

PRESIDING MEMBER

Click Here to Read the rest of this document