Gurcharan Singh Matto vs Reliant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member

The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant / complainant challenging the order dated 01.06.2018 whereby her Appeal was dismissed in limine on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that complainant had entered into an agreement with the respondent for purchase of an apartment and an apartment no. 203 on 2nd floor in Tower-E in the complex “ World-I Sante Majra” located at District Mohali, Punjab was allotted to her.  The complainant had stated that entire payment towards the purchase of said apartment has already been made.  The contention raised in the complaint was that despite the fact that due date of delivery was 01.10.2009, the possession has not been handed over to her till the date of filing of the complaint and no occupation certificate has been obtained by the opposite party.  It was also contended that she was unnecessarily made to pay maintenance charges for the said apartment.  On these contentions, certain prayers had been made by the complainant.

The State Commission after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant reached to the conclusion that complainant had placed on record possession letter dated 12.08.2015 and, therefore, this is the date on which cause of action to challenge alleged illegal act on the part of the respondent had arisen and since the complaint had been filed in the year 2018 i.e. beyond the period of limitation of 2 years, the complaint was not maintainable.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

Ld . counsel has argued that since the apartment is not fully finished and there is no occupancy certificate, therefore, the cause of action is continuing one and impugned order suffers with illegality.

Section 24-A of the Limitation Act , 1963 reads as under:

“24A. Limitation period.—

(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

On reading of the above, it is clear that the complaint is required to be filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  In this case, cause of action had arisen on the date when complainant had learnt that apartment was not fully finished apartment and the opposite party has failed to keep its promise.  It is also apparent that letter dated 12.08.2015 which is a possession certificate and duly signed by the Appellant clearly shows that physical possession of the apartment has been delivered to the complainant in peaceful manner.  In case the apartment was not fully finished, it is not explained as to what stopped the complainant in not challenging the said fact before the appropriate forum within the period of limitation.  The subsequent conduct of the Appellant which is payment of maintenance charges to the appropriate authorities and getting electricity connection installed in its name also shows that she had acted on this possession letter and after taking the possession of the apartment, applied for the electricity connection and also continued to pay the maintenance charges.  The cause of action, therefore, has arisen only on that day i. e. 12.08.2015 and complaint ought to have been filed within 2 years from that day.  The cause of action as alleged is not a continuing one and, therefore, State Commission had rightly rejected the complaint being barred by limitation.

I found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.  The Appeal stands dismissed.