JAYALAKSHMY BUILDERS PVT LTD Vs. SHEELA THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the order of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been challenged. At the time of hearing Counsel had pressed only the ground of limitation and maintainability of the complaint.

(2.) In this case the respondents had entered into an agreement (Annexure P1) with the petitioner on 17th May, 1995 whereby the petitioner agreed to construct and convey apartment No. 8-C on the 8th floor of the building to be constructed together with undivided interest in the land. The total consideration being Rs. 8,87,000 which the respondents had agreed to pay. The petitioner was to complete the construction within 18 months from the date of the agreement. The total payment was to be made two months before the completion of work in August 1996. Around that time the petitioner made a further demand of enhanced amount of Rs. 1,00,000, taking the total cost of Rs. 9,87,000 as on 4th of November, 1996. However, the progress in the construction remained tardy and virtually there was no progress worth any significance. Even though a further sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid on 17th November, 1996, as per the evidence, construction was not completed even in August 1997. Though the construction had come up, the front courtyard remained to be completed, lifts were yet to be installed in full, and car parking, etc. were not yet provided. Construction was also of sub-standard quality and no steps were taken for drawing electric connections. It is under these circumstances that the respondents wanted the petitioner to return their money with 20% interest.

(3.) The main defence taken by the petitioner before the State Commission was that of limitations which has been adequately dealt with by the State Commission and it has rightly held that the cause of action would not be reckoned from the date of execution of agreement, but from the date of the letter dated 20.8.1997 wherein the petitioner had clearly stated that due to various reasons beyond their control, they would be able to complete the project within 7 to 8 months. This period also expired on 20th April, 1998. This was the expected date of completion according to the petitioner itself and the building was not delivered till that date on 20th April, 1998, a complaint was filed in June 1999 which was clearly within two years from the date 20.4.1998, as prescribed in the Section 24(A) of the C.P. Act from the cause of action. For that reason, we thing that the State Commission had rightly decided the question of limitation against the petitioner. The State Commission had also examined the report by a local Commissioner who visited the building on 20th December, 2000 and has stated that the structure has been completed, flooring has been done with ceramic tiles. He has observed that the work inside the flat is almost complete except that electric connection, water supply and drainage connection. Although the electrical wiring were almost completed, no distribution box or circuit breaker were installed.