ZAMSHED ALAM KHAN Vs. REGENCY INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, named above, has filed the present complaint under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as as 'the Act'), averring that allured by the representations, made by the opposite parties, the complainant booked an apartment in the complex, known as 'regency Arch' at Vaishali, District Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh), on 25th June, 1989 and deposited a sum of Rs.48,000/- with the opposite parties for which a receipt, bearing No.99, dated 8th July, 1989, was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. It is further stated that in response to the application of the complainant, dated 25th June, 1989, the opposite parties provisionally allotted an apartment, bearing No. C-905, with an approximate built up area of 1015 sq. ft. , on the 9th floor, of their above mentioned proposed residential complex. It is stated that the sale price of that apartment was agreed to be Rs.4,85,125/-, i. e. at the rate of Rs.475/- per sq. ft. of built up area, as per allotment letter dated 8th September, 1989. It is stated that thereafter the complainant requested the opposite parties to supply the details regarding the housing loan, but the opposite parties failed to supply the above said details. It is stated that thereafter, the complainant, vide application dated 23rd August, 1991, applied for housing loan, to the extent of Rs. two lakhs, through Jeevan Niwas Scheme, floated by the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and on 5th April, 1992 a tripartite agreement was executed between the complainant, the authorities of the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. , Ghaziabad and the opposite parties, as a result of which a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned by the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. , Ghaziabad. It is stated that by 16th March, 1992, the complainant, against the cost of the apartment, in all had paid a sum of Rs.1,45,531/- to the opposite parties, including the sum of Rs.48,000/-, paid at the time of booking the apartment. It is stated that the opposite parties had represented that the project (Regency Arch Complex) would be completed by the opposite parties by December, 1991. The grievance of the complainant in the present complaint, in brief, is that the opposite parties have miserably failed to hand over the physical possession of the apartment to the complainant so far despite repeated requests and letters written by the complainant to the opposite parties. It has been prayed by the complainant that the opposite parties be directed to hand over possession of the flat in question on the agreed amount without any interest and on their failure to comply with the same, be held liable and responsible for the payment of damages, amounting to Rs.5,40,000/- and interest on the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. It has also been prayed that the opposite parties be also directed to refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

(2.) As per complainant's own case, the apartment in question was booked by him on 25th June, 1989. The project was to be completed by the opposite parties by December, 1991. Tri-partite agreement was executed between the complainant, the opposite parties and the authorities of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. , Ghaziabad on 5th April, 1992. The last payment has been made by the Complainant on 16th March, 1992.

(3.) In terms of the provisions contained in Sec.24a of the Act, a complaint under the Act has to be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen otherwise, the District Forum, the State Commission, or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall not admit the same. The above said provision of the Act, reads as under : " (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period : provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission, or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay. " (Underlined by us)