LAWS(NCD)-2007-8-21

STATUS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. CLEMENT GEORGE K

Decided On August 16, 2007
STATUS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Appellant
V/S
CLEMENT GEORGE K. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.3.2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State whereby appellant/opposite party No. 1 was directed to refund amount of Rs. 1,85,000 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of respective payments and pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3/complainants.

(2.) Out of the four points which arose for consideration before the State Commission, one was whether the complaint was barred by limitation. In present appeal, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Advocate for the appellant has pressed the plea of limitation only. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint pertaining to this plea only need be noticed. It was alleged that in or about April 1998, M/s. Status Builders and Developers-appellant advertised proposed construction, namely, Sai Blessing Project at Sanpada. Mukesh Bajaj is the partner of that firm. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 paid to the firm the amounts of Rs. 63,000 on 13.4.1998, Rs. 15,000 on 29.5.1988, Rs. 63,000 on 13.4.1988, Rs. 15,000 on 29.5.1988, Rs. 35,000 on 23.7.1988 through cheques and Rs. 17,000 in cash on 13.4.1988 for the shops in the said project. However, the project did not materialise as the firm had not been able to obtain possession of the plot at the said place. Mukesh Bajaj prevailed upon respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to have two shops in the proposed Shiva Complex at New Panvel. They reluctantly agreed to accept two shops in the said project. Later on, it transpired that the firm was not in a position to hand over the possession of the two shops. Mukesh Bajaj again persuaded respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take two flats in the proposed project, namely, 'Swagat' at Plot No. 8 at New Panvel. Since respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were interested in purchasing shops/flats, they agreed to purchase flat Nos. 101 and 102 in building No. 3 of 'Swagat' by adjusting the amount of Rs. 1,30,000 already paid by them to the firm. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 further paid amount of Rs. 50,000 on different dates to the firm. Mukesh Bajaj had promised that possession of the two flats will be handed over by the end of year 1992. It was alleged that in mid-1993, the respondent No. 1 met Mukesh Bajaj and asked him to refund the entire money as there was no progress in construction of the building 'Swagat'. Mr. Bajaj promised that construction would commence shortly and completed within a year. However, the construction did not commence till the end of 1994. It was stated that in early 1995, the construction activity was noticed on said plot No. 8. In June 1995, on inquiry about the progress of construction, the respondents were shocked to learn from Mukesh Bajaj that the whole project had been transferred to M/s. Sunrise Builders-respondent No. 4. It was detected that no record of booking of said flat Nos. 101 and 102 in the name of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was available with respondent No. 4. In the written version filed by the appellant by way of preliminary objection No. (A), it was pleaded that the payment was received from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 lastly in the year 1991 and the possession of the flats/shops was to be delivered in the year 1992 and the complaint filed in the year 1996 was, therefore, barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(3.) Submission advanced on behalf of the appellant was that the possession of two flat Nos. 101 and 102 was to be delivered by the end of the year 1992 and the limitation for filing complaint would, thus, start running since December, 1992 and the complaint filed on 11.3.1996 is patently barred by limitation. This submission, however, does not take note of subsequent events forming part of cause of action as pleaded in the complaint in regard to Mukesh Bajaj, partner, having assured completion of construction within a year in mid-1993; project having been transferred by the appellant to M/s. Sunrise Builders-respondent No. 4 in June, 1995 and booking of flat Nos. 101 and 102 in the name of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not finding mention in the record of respondent No. 4. Considering these subsequent events, the complaint filed in the year 1996 was well within limitation period. Impugned order for refund is for the amount the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had paid to the appellant. Appeal, thus, deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such with cost of Rs. 7,500 to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Appeal dismissed.