ZINA VARUGIS Vs. UMIYA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This challenge in this appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') is to order dtd. 1/3/2019 of the State Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa, Panaji (in short, the 'State Commission') in Complaint No. 02 of 2019 dismissing the complaint as being barred by limitation.

(2.) Briefly put, the relevant facts of the case are that the appellant had booked a flat with the respondents (who are builders) in their project 'Umiya Habitat' on Survey No. 117/1-A, Sacoale Village, Mormugao Taluka, District South Goa, Goa and entered into an Agreement for Sale on 1/4/2011. Flat E-604, 6th Floor admeasuring 80.22 sq mts with stilt parking No. E-160 was allotted. As per the Agreement for Sale, possession was offered within 12 months subject to extension by 6 months, i.e., by 1/10/2012. The agreed sale consideration was Rs.20,25,000.00 and the appellant paid Rs.19,65,203.00. In addition, Rs.41,993.00 was paid by the appellant on 25/1/2012 towards modifications in the flat making the total payment Rs.20,07,196.00. Possession was offered on 6/1/2014 along with a demand for Rs.1,50,813.00 to be paid before 15/1/2014. Appellants sought handing over of possession only after the flat was fully completed as there were incomplete works, along with compensation for delay of 20 months vide letter dtd. 6/1/2014. In reply dtd. 4/2/2014, respondents admitted to the delay and repairs but sent a legal notice dtd. 5/8/2015 alleging that appellants did not return the keys obtained for measurement for interiors related work. On 2/1/2016 respondent justified the delay in the delivery of the flat on the grounds of non-availability of building material (sand) which was contested by the appellant on 30/1/2016. A joint inspection of the flat on 13/2/2016 indicated that the flat still had incomplete works. According to the appellant, the respondent thereafter stopped responding. Hence complaint No. 2/2019 was filed before the State Commission which was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation having been filed after the prescribed period of 2 years beyond the period of limitation reckoned from 16/2/2016.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.