SAROJ KHARBANDA Vs. BIGJOS ESTATES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.06.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 90/2014, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed on grounds of limitation as per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant Saroj Kharbanda filed the consumer complaint no. 90/2014, stating that she booked a residential plot in the Project Bigjo's City at Gannaur (District Sonepat) floated by the respondent/Opposite Party (OP) Builder. The tentative area of the plot was 250 sq. yd and its tentative cost was Rs. 15,68,750/-. The complainant stated that she had deposited a sum of Rs. 7 lakh with the OP Builder between the years 2005-2008, but the OP Builder deprived her of the possession of the plot, despite accepting about half the consideration. Vide letter dated 17.07.2008, the OP Builder informed the complainant that they had received the licence and necessary clearances from the appropriate authorities of the Government of Haryana and had commenced the development work at the site. It was also informed that the OPs were starting the process of allotment of plots and asked the complainant to deposit 50% of the amount by 31.07.2008, which included 20% of the amount at the time of registration, another 20% as first instalment and another 10% at the time of allotment, alongwith 25% of the total External Development Charges (EDC). Despite the complainant having deposited the amounts as stated in the letter dated 17.07.2008, the OPs failed to deliver the plot to the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP Builder to handover physical possession of the plot in question, after receiving the balance amount for the plot and also to pay interest @18% p.a. on the amount already deposited with them and to give compensation of Rs. 15 lakh for causing delay in the delivery of the possession etc.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP Builder by filing a written reply before the State Commission, in which they stated that the complaint was not maintainable, as the matter was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum and further, the complaint was barred by limitation as per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further stated that since the complainant had not made any payment after 2008, the amount already deposited by them had been forfeited. It has, however, been admitted in the said reply that there was delay in the execution of the project due to error on the part of the Authorities to wrongly sanction the lay-out plans for the project.