DIPAK KUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI ZALA Vs. SHAKTI BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitions, as detailed in the heading above, have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned orders dated 28.02.2017, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in appeals filed by the complainants/petitioners against the respondent/opposite party (OP) Shakti Builders, vide which, while dismissing all the appeals, the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad in consumer complaints filed by the petitioners before them, were dismissed and the orders passed by the District Forum, dismissing all the complaints on the ground of limitation under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act were upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts involved in these cases as reproduced from the consumer complaint CMA No. 68/2014 filed by Dipakkumar Parshottambhai Zala (petitioner in Revision Petition No. 1395/2017) are that the complainant purchased a row-house duplex in the residential scheme floated by the OP builder, and the possession of the said house was delivered to the complainant. The sale deed for the said property was also executed and registered in favour of the complainant. It was alleged in the consumer complaint that several defects were found in the quality of construction made by the OP builder in the house, which were not rectified, despite bringing the defects to the notice of the OP builder. It was also stated that the OP builder had charged service tax from them without authorisation. Moreover, a copy of the building-use-permission had not been provided to them. Alleging deficiency of service against the OP builder, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP builder to pay him a sum of Rs. 12.5 lakhs as the amount required for repairing the defective construction, alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. It was also stated that the amount of Rs. 60,000/- paid as service tax should also be refunded to him and a further amount of Rs. 80,000/- paid as maintenance amount should also be refunded alongwith interest @ 15%. A compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs against mental harassment was also asked for besides Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost. Similar allegations were levelled in the other complaints as well.

(3.) Alongwith the consumer complaints, applications for condonation of delay were also filed by the complainants. A perusal of the same reveals that there is delay of 206 to 729 days in filing the complaints mentioned above.