FRANCE B MARTINS Vs. MAFALDA MARIA TERESA RODRIGUES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, promoters/developers of Perpetual Apartments, agreed to sell a flat in the name of minor daughter of the respondent : According to the Agreement between the parties, the price of the flat being Rs. 2,10,000.00 was to be paid on or before September, 1985. THE possession of the flat is stated to have been delivered to the respondent in September, 1985 on payment of the whole of the agreed amount. Despite various requests made, the appellant did not execute the sale deed on false pretexts. In the absence of the sale deed, the respondent-complainant could not efficaciously enjoy the property for which she is stated to have paid the price. It was submitted that as the construction of the flat was substandard, the respondent-complainant had to incur an expense of Rs. 26,000.00 for immediate repairs. Her petition filed on 19-6-1992 was dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Goa (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") on the ground of limitation vide order dated 19-10-1992. THE appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") and the matter was remitted to the District Forum permitting the respondent to amend her complaint. THE District Forum again, vide its order dated 31/03/1993, dismissed the complaint as barred by time. THE respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by the State Commission with a direction to the appellants for specific performance of the Agreement. THE revision filed by the appellant before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the National Commission") was dismissed vide impugned order dated 31-1-1994.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that as the complaint filed by the respondent was barred by time, the State Commission was not justified in issuing the directions which were confirmed by the National Commission. It is contended that before insertion of Section 24-A in the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act), the period of limitation for preferring a claim was such period as is prescribed under the Limitation Act and as according to him the complaint was filed by the respondent after seven years, the same deserved dismissal.

(3.) WE are, however clear that prior to its amendment the Act had not prescribed any period of limitation for filing the complaints by the consumers.