Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/61/2023

BHASHI LAL JOSHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIRVANA CO-OPERATIVE FIRST HOUSE SOCIETY - Opp.Party(s)

HARSH NAGRA

25 Aug 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	61 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	13.04.2023
Date of Decision	:	25.08.2023

 

 

Bhashi Lal Joshi S/o Sh. A.L. Joshi, Resident of Flat No. 1750, The Nirvana Co-Operative First House Building Society Sector 49-B, Chandigarh

 

……Appellant/Complainant

 

V e r s u s

 

1. The Nirvana Co-Operative First House Building Society Sector 49-B, Chandigarh through its President.
2. Registrar Co-Operative Societies Sector-17 U.T Chandigarh through its Registrar.

…..Respondents/opposite parties

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                            

Present:-              Sh.Harsh Nagra, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Sh.Rohit Kullar, Advocate for respondent no.1.

                             Sh.Rajinder Singh, District Attorney for respondent no.2.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant has assailed the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide which the consumer complaint bearing no.80 of 2023 filed by him was dismissed by it holding that since the cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2004, when he was allotted flat in question and amount was overcharged by the opposite party no.1, as such, the consumer complaint having been filed in the year 2023 instead of 2006 is beyond limitation.         

2.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that  he got allotment of the flat bearing no.1750, in the Nirwana Co-operative First House Building Society Limited (in short the society) Sector 49B, Chandigarh, in the year 2004 and got it transferred in his name in the year 2009. It was stated that that election contested by complainant was challenged in the year 2014 on account of being defaulter to the tune of Rs.47,167/-, whereas, on the other hand, as per him, he had paid the entire payment to the society. However, in the year 2017, he found that he was over charged rate of interest @ 24% per annum instead of 12% per annum for land cost, lease money and price escalation. Hence, consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
3.           The District Commission after hearing the counsel for the complainant and on going through the material available on record, dismissed the consumer complaint, at the preliminary stage, holding that it is barred by limitation. Hence this appeal has been filed by the complainant for setting aside the order impugned.  
4.           We have heard the counsel for the contesting parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record.
5.           The short question which falls for consideration before this Commission is, as to whether, the consumer complaint was barred by limitation or not. It may be stated here that it is coming out from the record that when the appellant wrote letter dated 03.06.2017, Annexure C-5 to respondent no.1, seeking refund of excess amount paid by him in respect of the unit in question; in response thereto, respondent no.1 vide letter dated 26.05.2018, Annexure C-7 sought some documents from him to take necessary action in the matter. It is further coming out from the record that when still the grievance of the appellant was not redressed by respondent no.1, he wrote letter dated 22.02.2019, Annexure C-9 to the Registrar Coop. Society, U.T,, Chandigarh i.e. respondent no.2 with a request to give directions to respondent no.1 to get the anomalies corrected and the excess amount be refunded to him. In response to the said letter dated 22.02.2019, the Additional  Registrar, U.T., Chandigarh vide memo no.COOP/HB-43/2019 dated 12.03.2019, Annexure C-10, directed the Inspector Grade-I (A), Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh to  reconcile the accounts of the  appellant as per record maintained by the society immediately but when nothing was done in the matter, subsequent letter dated 12.11.2021, Annexure C-15 was again sent asking Officers concerned to submit report qua the case of the appellant within 10 days.

                   It is significant to mention here that when still no action was taken in the matter, a show cause notice dated 10.02.2022, Annexure C-16 was issued by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh, asking the President/Secretary of the Society/opposite party no.1 to submit reply for non compliance of the order passed regarding failure to resolve the issue of the appellant for making refund of Rs.2,25,846/- and also other issues mentioned therein. It may be stated here that it is not the case, where the demand of alleged excess amount paid by the appellant was rejected by respondent no.1 and, on the other hand, had it been so, only in those circumstances, it would have been said that the period of limitation would have started from the date of rejection of the said claim of the appellant by respondent no.1. Thus, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it can easily be said that there was a continuing cause of action in favour of the complainant/appellant and even if the period of two years is taken from 10.02.2022 i.e. from the date of issuance of letter Annexure C-16 aforesaid, even then the consumer complaint having been filed on 11.02.2023 is well within limitation, as there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the appellant, irrespective of the fact that the appellant is entitled to get refund of the amount in question or not, which is an issue to be decided on merits. The District Commission thus fell into an error by dismissing the complaint on the ground that it is beyond limitation, by holding to the contrary.

6.           Resultantly, this appeal stands allowed and the order impugned is set aside. Consequently, this case is remanded back to the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh with the direction to decide it afresh on merits.
7.           However, it is made clear that since in this appeal, this Commission has referred the  letters aforesaid to decide only the issue qua limitation and has not touched the merits of this case, as such, this order passed will not have any bearing on the merits of the case at the time of considering  and  deciding the  consumer complaint by the District Commission, afresh, on merits, after giving due opportunities to the parties, as per law. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 12.09.2023. 
8.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9.           The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and record of the District Commission concerned be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

25.08.2023

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Rg