Delhi

StateCommission

CC/898/2017

JAGBIR SINGH YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

M2K INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ANOOP KUMAR

07 May 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 07.05.2019

Date of Decision : 17.05.2019

COMPLAINT NO.898/2017

In the matter of:

 

Shri Jagbir Singh Yadav

Village Garhi, P.O. Garhibolni,

Distt. Riwari, Haryana………Complainant

 

Versus

 

M2K Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

E-13/29 Harsha Bhawan,

Connaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001.……..Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. This order will dispose of application of Op for dismissal of the complaint, filed alongwith WS. The plea of the OP is that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) Consumer Protection Act. He had invested money in two apartments for commercial purpose in the same project. The complaint is hopelessly time barred. The complaint was filed on 12.05.17. Allotment of  the two apartment of the complainant was cancelled vide notice dated 09.11.11 due to non making the payment as per construction linked payment plan. Service of the said notice is evident from letter dated 15.11.11 sent by complainant in which he informed the OP about his lack of financial means to pay the dues.
2. Complainant has filed reply to above application. He has disputed that he is not a consumer merely because he purchased two apartments in a residential building from hard earned money for complainant’s own residence. The OP is trying to prolong the proceedings by filing frivolous application. The cause of action is continuing as construction was still lagging far behind the stipulated time with regards to completion of project. OP had never sent any cancellation letter to the complainant. Hence no question arises of computation of limitation period. He denied that he was ever in default of payment. Even today only first floor of the basement was there of tower-B and upto that slab payment was complete. Complainant  made every payment in time. OP was at  fault and had no right to send a cancellation letter.
3. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The plea of the OP that complainant invested money in purchasing 2 apartments for commercial purpose is not tenable because the copy of letter dated 31.12.07 from OP itself recites that apartment was in proposed residential group housing project.
4. However the plea of the Op regarding limitation appears to be sound. The photocopy of the letter sent by complainant in his own hand writing and containing impression of signature of the complainant  which is Annexure-R/10 to WS and is  paced at page 59 of the bunch of WS, there is reference to cancellation notice dated 09.11.5. This does not leave any scope for the complainant to say that OP did not serve cancellation notice. The above letter contains a recital that he purchased a property in Riwari, Huda, Sector-3 he arranged finance from housing loan/ personal loan etc. After that he had not paid any dues from the units in question. Housing finance company refused his loan application for the units in question. The problem was that no one was giving him loan  for these units.
5. In case of cancellation, right to seek refund arises on receipt of cancellation notice. Since cancellation notice is dated 09.11.11, the complaint could be filed by 09.11.13. But the same has been filed on1 2.05.17. The same is barred by limitation. There is no application for condonation of delay in filing complaint. Not even alongwith reply to application under dismissal.
6. In view of the above discussion the application of OPs allowed and the complaint is dismissed as being barred by limitation.
7. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
8. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)