Jayaprakash vs ALIM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

THIS action came up for admission before us today.

WE heard the learned Counsel Mr. R. Murari, appearing for the complainant. WE also perused the complaint and other documents filed alongwith it. Such a perusal reveals that the complainants entered into an agreement with the opposite parties-builders for the construction of flats on various dates between 22.12.1993 and 18.4.1994.

One of the terms and conditions in the agreement was that the opposite party-builders must have to deliver possession of the individual flats to the complainants after the expiry of 12 months from the date of receipt of Planning Permits from the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (for short M.M.D.A.).

THE possession however to all the complainants of the flats were handed over during 1994-95. One of the terms and conditions of the agreement was that the opposite party must have to construct the flats without making any deviation of planning permits issued for the construction of such flats.

THE Planning Permit and Sale Deed it is said, were handed over to all the complainants at the time of handing over possession of the individual flats to them. On 5.7.1996 it appears that demolition notices were given to the opposite party-builders for the demolition of the flats since the construction of the flats were not in accord with the Planning Permits issued to them. On 2.9.1996 a copy of the notice said to have been issued to the builder was also served upon the individual complainants.

THE complainants in turn through their association started corresponding with the builder-opposite parties for rectifying the deviations by a letter dated 5.9.1996. Such protracted correspondence continued till upto 24.5.1999 on which date the opposite party-builders, it appears, disclaimed any responsibility for the deviations made.

IN such a back-drop and setting the complainants knocked at the doors of this Commission claiming alleged deficiency in service on the opposite parties and consequently claiming certain relief as prayed for in the complaint. On the face of the material as projected above getting revealed from the materials placed on record, we are of the view that the institution of proceedings before this Commission by way of a complaint is clearly barred by time. The reasons are rather obvious. Even the averments in the complaint and other connected documents filed would reveal that the complainants took possession of the individual flats during the year 1994-95 on various dates. Even at the time of taking delivery of the possession, it is said that necessary and requisite documents inclusive of the permit sanctioning the plan, sale deed etc., had been given to the individual complainants. Even at the time of taking possession, a duty is cast upon the complainants to verify as to whether the construction that has been put up by the opposite party-builder is in accordance with the planning permit obtained for such construction. It appears they have not done so and learned Counsel appearing for the complainants would submit that possession was taken in good faith in the sense of the construction having been made in accordance with the planning permit.

Even such an argument for the purpose of arguments sake is given due weight and credit even then we rather feel the other factual matrix of the case clearly pinpoints that the complaint is clearly barred by time as one having been filed beyond two years from the date of commencement of the cause of action. We have already stated that the builder-opposite parties have been served with a notice of demolition on all the flats constructed by him for the benefit of the complainants on 5.7.1996. The matter did not stop there. The complainants were also served with individual notices on 2.9.1996 intimating them that the flats they are occupying were to be demolished for the reason that those flats were constructed not in accord with the planning permit issued to them in the sense of making many a deviation thereto. Such being the case, it cannot at all be stated that the complainants are not at all aware of the deviations made by the opposite party-builders in constructing the flats for them. Therefore, the cause of action in such circumstances ought to commence from 2.9.1996. Cause of action once started cannot at all be stopped or enlarged by entering into the protracted correspondence between the parties. The law on this aspect of the matter is quite settled and in this case we may say by way of reiteration that the cause of action having commenced on 2.9.1996 when the individual complainants flat owners were served with the notice of demolition on the ground that the flats were constructed deviating the planning permits issued, it goes without saying that the complaint ought to have been filed on 1.9.1998 and the complaint in this case having been filed on 15.2.2000, it is very well beyond time as per the salient provisions contemplated under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE complaint as such deserves to be rejected in limine and we accordingly do so. Complaint dismissed in limine.