P L BANERJEE Vs. BHAIRAB SADHUKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals involving common questions of law are taken up together for disposal and the same judgment will govern all the cases.

(2.) These appeals are directed against the majority judgment passed by the two Members of the South 24 Parganas District Forum namely Sri B. C. Gomes and Smt. Rama Acharya (the order of the former is dated 17.12.2003 and the order of the latter agreeing with the former dated 19.2.2004 ). It may be mentioned that the President of the Forum passed a separate judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 which was not supported by the other two Members and hence the appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the two Members being the majority judgment. Under their order the learned Members of the Forum have held that the complaint was barred by limitation and they dismissed the same on that score without entering into the merits of the matter. The case of the complainant was that he entered into an agreement with the O. Ps. for purchasing a flat on 16th June, 1997 at a price of Rs.4,82,000/-. As per the terms of the agreement he paid the consideration money in full and also took possession of the flat on 22nd November, 2000 but the construction work of the flat was not complete and on repeated reminders the O. P. did not pay any heed and neglected to complete the work. Furthermore, the O. P. violated the terms of the contract by not executing and registering a deed of conveyance in respect of the flat in favour of the complainant. Hence the complainant was compelled to file the complaint. The O. P. appeared and contested the case by filing a written objection contending therein inter alia that he had done some extra work in the flat and for that he incurred extra expenditure of Rs.1,10,000/- and unless the complainant paid that amount he was not in a position to execute and register the deed of conveyance or to do any further work in respect of the flat.

(3.) The view taken in the impugned judgment is that since the complainant took possession of the flat on 22nd November, 2000 the contract of sale was to be registered within 4 months from this date under the Registration Act and the O. P. having not registered the deed of conveyance within this period, committed breach of the contract and a right was conferred under the law on the petitioner to sue the O. P. under the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency in service on the part of the O. P. , but this right can be enjoyed by the petitioner only for a limited period namely a period of two years from the date of his taking possession of the flat, but the petitioner has failed to exercise his right within such a time limit and has filed the case beyond the period of two years. From that part of view the complaint has become time-barred and on that score it has been dismissed.