AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Heard counsel for the appellants.
The above appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal dated 02.05.2023 passed in CC/33/2023 whereby the complaint was dismissed as time barred. In the complaint following prayers have been made:-
a. An order directing the opposite parties jointly and/or severally to execute the register deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants in respect of the subject property which is morefully described in the schedule A below;
b. An order directing the opposite parties to refund the TDS amounting to Rs.92950/- to the complainant along with 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization;
c. An order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for deficiency of service and also for unfair trade practice;
d. An order directing the opposite parties to pay litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant;
e. An order of attachement;
f. Interest pendent lite;
g. Any other consequential relief or relief the complainants are entitled in law and in equity.
So far as prayer for directing the opposite party to execute the registered deed of conveyance is concerned it is of the nature of continuing wrong as provided under Section 22 of Limitation Act, 1963. Supreme Court Samruddhi Co-Opeartive Housing Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction 2022 SCC Online SC 35 held that in case of continuing the cause of action, the limitation is not started unless the right is denied by the opposite party. In view of the aforesaid discussions the order of the State Commission is liable to the set aside.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The order of the State Commission dated 02.05.2023 passed in CC/33/2023 is set aside. The State Commission is directed to admit the complaint to its original number and decide in accordance with law.