(1.) This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 7.10.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. CC/448/2016, filed by the present respondent against the Opposite Parties(OPs)/appellants, vide which, interim application for condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint was allowed and the said delay was ordered to be condoned.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent booked a flat in the project called Vora Township Phase-II, Village Ghod Bandar, district Thane, launched by the OPs/appellants builders and deposited a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- with them towards sale consideration of the said property. The total consideration for the property was stated to be Rs.23,40,000/- and an allotment letter dated 05.10.1994 was also issued by the appellant builder in favour of the complainant and receipt for the amount deposited was issued. It has been alleged in the consumer complaint No. 448/2016 filed by the complainant through his power of attorney holder Suresh Sutaria that despite receipt of more than 20% of the sale consideration, the OP builders failed to execute the agreement of sale with him, neither the possession of the said property was delivered to them. The complainant visited the office of the OPs a number to times to enquire about the progress of the work and he was assured always that the construction was likely to be started soon. It is further stated that on 05.01.2013, i.e., after about 19 years of making the initial deposit, the power of attorney holder Suresh Sutaria visited the site of the project and found to his surprise that the OPs had already constructed a building over there and also sold the flat which was allotted to the complainant. The power of attorney holder tried to contact the staff of the builder, but no satisfactory reply was provided to him. Alleging an act of fraud and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the OP builder to give possession of flat admeasuring 2600 sq. ft. in the said project and to execute the necessary sale documents in their favour. It was also pleaded that if the OP builders was unable to provide the flat in question, they may provide an alternative flat to him or to pay a sum of Rs.67,62,668 being the compensation for not providing the flat. A further sum of Rs.15 lakh as compensation was also demanded. A miscellaneous application bearing no. MA/16/241, seeking condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint was also made before the State Commission, stating that there had been a delay of 263 days in filing the complaint and the same should be condoned. The complainant stated that the cause of action had arisen to them when OP Builders sent response, as reply to the legal notice issued by him.
(3.) In their affidavit of reply filed before the State Commission, the OP Builders stated that the complaint was barred by limitation under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There was no explanation as to why the complainant remained silent for about 19 years, i.e., from 08.10.94 till 02.09.2013. The complaint had, therefore, been filed after a delay of 21 years 7 months counted from the date 08.10.1994.