HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, ‘the Act’) by the appellant challenging the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the Learned Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajarhat (New Town) ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in complaint case No. CC/390/2023 wherein Learned District Commission has been pleased to reject the complaint case filed by the complainant / appellant.

2. The appellant / complainant filed a complaint case before the Learned District Commission being No. CC/390/2023 praying for the following reliefs :-

“a) Direction on the opposite party to complete the registration of the said flat of the complainant by way of an execution of the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant in respect of the said flat as early as possible;

b) Appointment of a Commissioner to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Complainant in respect of the aforesaid flat if the opposite party do not want to execute the same in favour of the complainant;

c) Direction on the opposite parties to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.80,000/- for the severe mental pain, agony and trauma suffered by the complainant due to deficiency of service by the opposite party;

d) Direction on the opposite parties to pay Costs of the litigation of Rs.50,000/-;

e) Any further order or orders as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper.”

3. The Learned District Commission after hearing on the point of admission by the complainant, was pleased to reject the complaint case by the order impugned.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant at length and in full and have carefully perused the complaint case.

6. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and on perusal of the record including the complaint case I find that the respondent is the widow of the proprietor namely Late Udayan Goswami of M/s. G.C. Construction who was also the developer / contractor of the building situated at 30, Ashokgarh, P.S. Baranagar, P.O. ISI, Pin – 700 108. It also appears to me that an agreement dated 11.12.1991 was executed by and between the complainant and Late Udayan Goswami, proprietor of M/s. G.C. Construction for purchasing a flat being Flat No. 7 on the 3^rd floor (Southern Side) measuring an area of 585 sq. ft. at 30, Ashokgarh, P.S. Baranagar, P.O. ISI, Pin – 700 108. As per the agreement made by and between the appellant and the husband of the opposite party, Late Udayan Goswami, the respondent is supposed to give the possession of the flat on or before 31^st June, 1992 and consideration amount was fixed at ₹1,92,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ninety two thousand only). The appellant paid the total consideration amount of the said flat to the husband of the opposite party and on receiving the entire amount, the husband of the opposite party handed over the possession of the said flat to the appellant through possession letter dated 26.03.1993.

7. Further case of the appellant is that after execution of the agreement dated 11.12.1991, the appellant requested the husband of the opposite party / respondent to complete the registration of the flat but to no effect. After passing so many years, again the appellant started to request the developer to complete the registration of the flat but the husband of the opposite party promised the appellant that this time he will definitely register the flat. But the husband of the opposite party did not register the flat in favour of the appellant. Rather, the opposite party illegally demanded the amount of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from the complainant for registration of the same.

8. Further case of the appellant / complainant is that several requests have been made by the complainant over telephone to the opposite party to complete the registration of his flat but the opposite party did not consider the requests of the complainant. As such, the appellant / complainant sent two Advocate’s letters dated 11.07.2023 and 17.08.2023 to the elder brother of Late Udayan Goswami, proprietor of M/s. G.C. Construction, i.e. Nilu Goswami. But the opposite party did not register the said flat in favour of the complainant.

9. Hence this case.

10. It is found that the cause of action of this case arose on and before 31^st June, 1992.

11. The complaint case was filed in the year 2023 which reveals that this case has been filed after 28 years from the date of cause of action as because the possession of the flat on completion shall be given by the developer to the appellant on or before 31^st June, 1992. The appellant has filed the complaint case before the Commission which is not legally permitted in view of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

12. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 runs as follows :-

“(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

13. From the aforesaid provision it appears that the provision is peremptory in nature, requiring the Consumer Commission to examine before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Commission, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint, if sufficient cause is shown.

14. On careful perusal of the record it appears to me that this complaint has not been filed in time. There is a delay in filing the petition of complaint by the complainant. Moreover, it appears to me that this complaint is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay.

15. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has urged that the appellant sent legal notices to the opposite party on 11.07.2023 and 17.08.2023 for registration of the flat. But the opposite party did not register the flat in question as per the agreement dated 11.12.1991. I fail to accept the contention made by the Learned Lawyer appearing for the appellant.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors., reported at (2014) 6 SCC 460 has held the following :-

“10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided.........”

17. The Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported at III (2006) CPJ 414 NC, has observed that :-

“no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.”

18. In the present case also the complaint case has been filed after almost 28 years from the date of serving legal notice to the opposite parties. Even though the complainants have made several requests to the opposite parties but the same cannot be considered as the accrual of fresh cause of action.

19. I find that the complaint is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay. Then, it was the duty of the complainants to approach before the Court of Law by filing a complaint within the stipulated period of limitation i.e. within two years from the date of cause of action. But without doing so, the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission after a long 28 years from the date of serving notice to the opposite parties without filing any separate petition praying for condonation of delay which is contrary to the provision of section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

20. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has referred judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in connection with case No. FA 884 of 2013 and another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in connection with Civil Appeal No. 4000 of 2019. However, reliance on these two judgments in the adjudication of the complaint, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.

21. Under this facts and circumstances and on consideration of the materials available on record, I hold that the order of the Learned District Commission below should not be disturbed. There is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, the appeal is without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.

22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be or order as to costs.

23. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.