AKHTAR BEGUM vs Secretary, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, U P

THE complainant/petitioner booked a residential plot with the respondent by depositing an initial payment of Rs. 10,000/ -. A plot was allotted to the complainant and she was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - by 15.03.1990. The complainant/petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,000/ - on 08.12.1989. No further payment having been deposited by the petitioner/complainant, the allotment was cancelled by the respondent/opposite party vide order of the Vice -Chairman dated 10.06.1994 which is alleged to have been sent to the complainant/petitioner by registered post vide letter dated 11.07.1994.

THE complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint filed in the year 2003, seeking refund of the amount deposited by her alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs. 20,000/ -.

THE complaint was resisted by the respondent/opposite party primarily on the ground that the balance payment not having been made by the petitioner, the allotment was rightly cancelled. Vide its order dated 30.07.2004, the concerned District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

BEING aggrieved from the above said order passed by the District Forum in the present case, the petitioner approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 02.07.2014, the concerned State Commission dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

IT is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party during the course of the hearing that since the allotment was cancelled on 11.07.1994 and the complaint came to be registered sometime in the year 2003, it was clearly barred by limitation. He also submits that even if the plea of limitation is not taken, the Consumer Forum was bound to examine at the very threshold as to whether the complaint was filed within the prescribed period of limitation or not.

WE are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party that even if the plea of limitation is not taken in the reply filed by the opposite party, it is obligatory for the Consumer Forum to examine whether the complaint is within the prescribed period of limitation or not and if the complaint is found to be barred by limitation prescribed under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, it is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

IT was clearly stated in the reply filed that letter cancelling the allotment was sent to the complainant by registered post on 11.07.1994. A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum would show that the complainant did not claim before the said Forum that the letter cancelling the allotment was not received by him. Therefore, the cause of action to file this complaint accrued on receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 11.07.1994 which the complainant, in the normal course of business, would have received within a few days thereafter. The prescribed period of limitation being 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action, the complainant filed in the year 2003 was clearly barred by limitation. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum and State Commission does not call for interference by us in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.

HOWEVER , since the learned counsel for the respondent has stated before us on instructions that the respondent is ready to make payment of 85% of the refund amount received from the petitioner after making deduction of 15% as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties, we direct the respondent to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within 4 weeks from today.