CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO. 11 OF 1999 Date of filing : 05/01/1999

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 120 OF 1997 Date of order : 09/03/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE



1. Mr.Abraham R. Gaddam

2. Mrs.Sarofin Refaero

3. Mrs.Elizabeth Verghese

4. Mr.Dhanraju

5. Mr.M.P. Nair (deceased/thru legal heirs)

6. Mr.George

7. Mohan R. Shetty

All r/o. Saikrupa Apartment,

Nr.Orthrodox Church, Ambernath,

Tal. Ulhasnagar, Dist. Thane. … Appellants/org. complainants

V/s.

1. Mr.Cyril Fernandes, Prop.

Mac’s Builder & Royal Estate Agents,

Matilda Apartment, Nr.Sanjivan

Hospital, Kohoj Khuntavali,

Ambernath-421 507.

2. Mr.Elizar Mathew

Saikrupa Apartment, Flat-7,

Nr.Orthodox Church, Kohoj,

Khuntavali, Ambernath (W). … Respondents


Corum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Mr.Nagraj Hoskeri, Advocate for the appellants.

- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

We heard Mr.Nagraj Hoskeri, Advocate for the appellants.

This appeal filed by org. complainants whose complaint has been dismissed by the District Consumer Forum Thane by the judgement & award dated 07/11/1998 passed in consumer complaint No.120/1997.

The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-

In all seven complainants, resident of Ambernath, District Thane, who are all flat purchasers, filed consumer complaint alleging that they had paid entire consideration for purchase of flats to the builder, but dispute arose about payment of electricity charges. The complainants made out a grievance that compound wall, garden, exterior painting, ladder for overhead tank, water proofing, etc. was incomplete. Therefore, there was deficiency in service. Therefore, they claimed that O.P.No.1/builder be directed to remove defects as pleaded in Para 20 of the complaint and also claimed damages of Rs.1 Lakh. Complaint was filed in the Forum below on 06/12/1997.

O.P.Nos.1&2 contested the complaint. According to O.P.Nos.1&2, complainants obtained possession of the respective flats in 1990 and for the first time, dispute was being raised in 1997. Hence, complaint was time-barred. O.P.Nos.1&2 further pleaded that complaint is signed by complainant Nos.6&7 only and that all complainants have not signed the complaint. O.P.Nos.1&2 raised defence that there was no lacuna in the construction work. They pleaded that none of the complainants paid moneys towards electricity charges. O.P.Nos.1&2 denied that they had collected water charges @ Rs.40/- per month from the complainants. They pleaded that they had applied for conversion of water from non-domestic to domestic in 1993 itself. O.P.Nos.1&2 collected charges for individual electric meter connection. In nutshell, defence of the O.P.Nos.1&2 was that complaint was not maintainable after lapse of five years and on that ground they pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.

On the basis of documents and affidavits placed on record, Learned Forum below was of the view that since the complainants had got possession of the respective flats in 1990, claim in respect of defective construction and charges recovered for electricity and water, claimed in 1997 was clearly barred by limitation. The Forum below therefore held that it had no hesitation to dismiss the complaint.

We examined the judgement & award passed by District Consumer Forum very carefully. We are finding that a stale claim was made by the complainants by filing consumer complaint in 1997 when in fact they had received possession of the respective flats way back in 1990. It is true that till 1993 there was no period of limitation prescribed and for the first time by amending Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in 1993, Section 24A was added on the Statute Book and two years limitation is prescribed. When there was no limitation till 1993, it was alright for the complainants, but when amendment to the Act came into effect in 1993, within two years therefrom consumer complaint about deficiency in service should have been filed. So, if this consumer complaint should have been filed in 1995, it would have been held within limitation. But, since it has been filed on 06/12/1997, consumer complaint as filed by the complainants was barred by limitation. Moreover, they had not prayed for condonation of delay also. Therefore, on the whole, the dismissal of the complaint is appearing to be just and proper and as such we cannot take different view in the matter sitting in the appeal. We are therefore finding no merit in the appeal. Hence, the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar)

Member Presiding Judicial Member