SUNITA VASANTRAO MOHITE Vs. MAHMAD ABBAS PAKHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Request for adjournment is declined. It is the complainant who is petitioner before us. She filed a complaint in the District Forum complaining deficiency in service by the respondent-builders. The alleged deficiency was that the respondents did not construct the compound wall, common facility of water tap and light, erection of M.S. gate and non-execution of the sale deed.

(2.) Complainant entered into an agreement with the respondents for purchase of a flat. She took possession of the flat on 11.3.1990 but the complaint was filed on 9.3.1998. It was barred by limitation. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came into force w.e.f. 18.6.1993. Even assuming that cause of action arose on the coming into force of Section 24A, complaint had to be filed within two years. State Commission noticed that no application seeking condonation of delay was filed and no ground even existed to condone the delay. State Commission, therefore, in our view rightly allowed the appeal of the respondents-builders and dismissed the complaint.

(3.) In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the controversy between the parties.