SHIPRA ESTATE P LTD Vs. NARENDER NARAIN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 3.5.2006 of State Commission, Delhi disposing of appeal against the order dated 6.10.2005 of a District Forum reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 25,000 as awarded by the District Forum to Rs. 15,000.

(2.) Respondent/complainant along with application for allotment of a flat to be constructed by the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 gave a draft of Rs. 60,000 towards booking amount to the banker of the petitioner on 31.5.1997. Respondent alleged that the claims made by the petitioner in the prospectus were false and development work had not been carried out by the petitioner in time. He asked for refund of the said deposited amount and on its not being returned a complaint was filed seeking certain reliefs which was contested by filing written version by the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not participate in proceedings after filing of written version, the case proceeded ex parte against it on 24.5.2005. Respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 was also proceeded ex parte by the District Forum. Based on the allegations made in complaint, affidavit filed in support thereto etc., the District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to refund amount of Rs. 60,000, pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation/interest and Rs. 1,000 as compensation towards mental agony. Amount of interest of Rs.25,000 was reduced to Rs. 15,000 in appeal filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Submission advanced by Mr. K.N. Nagpal for petitioner is that the complaint was barred by limitation, District Forum at Delhi did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint and deposited amount of Rs. 60,000 was forfeited by the petitioner under Clause 5 (a) of the application submitted by the respondent. Similar submission advanced on behalf of petitioner was negated by the State Commission. To be noted that plea of limitation was not specifically raised in the written version. Date of booking of flat i.e., 31.5.1997 cannot be taken as starting point of limitation as contended by Mr. Nagpal. Cause of action to file complaint would accrue to the respondent only on refusal of the petitioner to refund Rs. 60,000. Petitioner has not led any evidence when it finally communicated to the respondent about non-refund of the said amount treating it to have been forfeited. Complaint, thus, cannot said to have been filed beyond the limitation period.