Lachhman Das Verma vs NBCC MHG JV

The office has reported that the appeal has been filed with delay of 244 days.  The appellant has filed an application (Diary No.19850 dated 02.11.2022) for condoning the delay. In this application, the appellant has stated that the order passed by SCDRC was sent to the appellant through Registry on 17.12.2019 and he did not receive it till 27.01.2020. After receiving the copy of the impugned order, the appellant contacted his authorized representative to draft the appeal.  In the meantime, sister of the authorized representative passed away on 17.02.2020 and her last rites were performed on 24.02.2020.  Thereafter, the appeal was drafted but in the meantime, pandemic Covid-19 spread throughout the country. Therefore, the appeal was filed on 16.09.2020.

Supreme Court in suo moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020 waived limitation w.e.f. 15.03.2020. The delay prior to 15.03.2020 was caused as the free copy was received to the appellant on 27.01.2020 and thereafter, due to bereavement in the family of the A.R., the appeal could not be drafted. The cause shown is sufficient.  The delay in filing the appeal condoned. The appeal is heard for admission.

The above appeal has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi dated 26.11.2019 whereby the complaint was dismissed as time barred.

The appellant filed CC/1003/2019 before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi on 07.11.2019, in which following prayers have been made:

i. Direct the Opposite Party to pay interest @ 15% (which it charges from the customers on delayed payment) penalty/compensation for delay in giving possession from 01-05-2013 till the date of possession and thereafter interest @15% on the accrued amount till the date of final payment.

ii. Direct the Opposite Party to allot parking slot and refund of Rs. 50,000/- for car parking slot charged by the Opposite Party alongwith interest @ 15% from the date of deposit till the date of payment.

iii. Direct the Opposite Party to refund the wrongly charged interest on timely paid instalments by the Complainant.

iv. Direct the Opposite Party to remove the objectionable and unreasonable clauses in the draft of the Conveyance Deed which hurts the rights and interest of the Complainant, so that he may execute the Conveyance Deed.

v. Direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs Only) to the Complainant for deficiency in service.

vi. Direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.5 lacs to the Complainant for construction of unauthorized Penta House for grossly violating the rules of UP Apartment Act 2010 for not taking the prior permission/consent of the buyers.

vii. Direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- cost of litigation etc.

viii. Direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.5 lacs on account of mental agony, harassment, inflicted by the Opposite Party on the Complainant who is the senior citizen of 76 years from going pillar to the post for the last so many years.

ix. Or/and pass any other orders in favour of the Complainant as the Hon'ble Commission deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.

In the complaint the appellant has stated that the opposite party, vide letter dated 28.07.2015, offered possession. The complainant then requested to send a draft of the conveyance deed, execution of which was a condition for taking possession. After receiving the conveyance deed, the complainant vide letter dated 07.11.2015, requested the opposite party to remove the objectionable clauses from the conveyance deed which was refused vide letter dated 18.02.2016.  The complainant took possession of the flat on 22.05.2016.  A perusal of the complaint shows that the main relief in the complaint is to remove the objectionable clauses in the conveyance deed and execute the conveyance deed and the other reliefs are ancillary.  Cause of action arose to the complainant on 28.07.2015 when for the first time, the letter of offer of possession was issued to the complainant with request to complete the formalities of documentation and take possession. The complainant raised objection against the clauses of conveyance deed on 07.11.2015.  Therefore, the cause of action for filing the complaint arose at least on 07.11.2015 and the complaint has to be filed within two years according to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But the complaint was filed on 07.11.2019 without any application for condoning the delay. The delay has not been explained in any paragraph of the complaint. Under Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963, once the limitation has begun to run, then the limitation cannot be postponed to a subsequent date by making representations. Supreme Court also in Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading Company (2021) 2 SCC 338 and Secunderabad Cantonment Board Vs. B. Rama (2021) 5 SCC 705, has held that making successive representations will not extend the limitation.

The State Commission has not committed any illegality in dismissing the appeal as time barred.  We find no reason to interfere with the order the State Commission.  The appeal is dismissed.