FRWA-NCDRC JUDGEMENT (PARA 16-17)

 PRESIDENT

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

CONSUMER CASE NO. 427,430-440 of 2014

Versus

M/s Unitech LTD (Opposite party –OP)

Para 16. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that since the sale consideration paid by the complainants was less than Rs.1,00,00,000/- the complaint is maintainable before the concerned State Commission and not before this Commission. Again, I find no merit in the contention. The case of the complainants is that current market value of such apartments is not less than Rs.10,000/- per sq. ft. calculated accordingly the current market value of the individual flats booked by the complainants comes to more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- in every complaint. One of the prayers made in the complaint is to direct the opposite party to handover possession of the flat to the complainants. For the purpose of this relief, the current market value of the flat would be the pecuniary value of the service and since the said value is more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- in each case, it cannot be disputed that only this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

Para 17. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that since the last date stipulated in the buyers agreement for giving possession of the flat to them expired more than two years ago the complaint is barred by limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. It is by now settled legal proposition that failure to deliver possession being a continuous wrong it constitutes a recurrent cause of action and, therefore, so long as the possession is not delivered to him the buyers can always approach a Consumer Forum.  It is only when the seller flatly refuses to give possession that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act would began to run. In that case the complaint has to be filed within two years from the date on which the seller refuses to deliver possession to the buyer. However, in the present cases the opposite party did not refuse possession of the flats to the complainants at any point of time and, therefore, the cause of action continues to subsist in favour of the complainants. Reliance in this regard may be place upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, IV(2012) CPJ 12 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in such a case the buyer has a recurrent cause for filing a complaint for non-delivery of possession of the plot.

Warm Regards

For FEDERATION OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

KULDEEP KUMAR KOHLI

PRESIDENT