GOPAL GOGIA vs VIDYUT CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY

THE present complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') by Shri Gopal Gogia, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of O.P. M/s. Vidyut Co-operative Group Housing Society, Plot No. 81, Partparganj, 9th Avenue, I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092. It is stated by the complainant that he was a founder member of the Society and he opted for A type flat (3-bed-room multi-storeyed block) on 15.8.1985. However, in the draw of lot held on 26.9.1985, he was allotted Type B flat of two-bedrooms. THE complainant wrote to the O.P. Society to allot him a Type A flat as requested in the option letter dated 15.8.1985. However, in spite of his repeated visits to the office of the O.P. Society and several representations, nothing was done. In between he was also informed to make the payment of the instalment and the President of the Society also assured that he will be allotted a Type A flat in the multi-storey block under construction and on this assurance, the complainant agreed to pay the pending instalments due till the year 1987. He sent three cheques i.e., cheque No. 134540 dated 12.2.1988 for Rs. 20,000/-, Cheque No. 645926 dated 7.10.1988 for Rs. 25,000/- and Cheque No. 062041 dated 15.1.988 for Rs. 35,000/- . It is further stated by the complainant that in spite of payment, he was expelled from the membership of the society vide letter dated 14.10.1988. THE three cheques sent by the complainant to the O.P. Society were also returned vide letter dated 19.11.1988. However, the complainant again sent the cheques to the O.P. He also sent another cheque No. 530523 dated 10.2.1989 for Rs. 50,000/-. THE complainant also approached the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and he was informed vide letter dated 22.2.1992 that the Society cannot change the category of members except with the consent of the members itself and any such action on the part of the Society is unlawful. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that draw of flats was being held on 24.7.1993 and he again requested the O.P. society for allotment of Type A flat but in spite of the efforts, nothing was done and the complainant was not given the possession of the desired flat. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint before this Commission with the request that the O.P. be directed to allot type A flat to the complainant along with compensation for delay and also compensation for mental agony and harassment besides costs of litigation.

SINCE the O.P. did not file any reply hence the case proceeded ex parte against the O.P. In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his own affidavit along with copies of various letters written by him to the O.P. Society. Copy of the option letter dated 15.8.1985 by which the complainant has for three-bedroom Type A flat. Copy of the allotment letter by which Type B two-bedroom flat was allotted and other various letters received from the O.P. Society. The complainant has also filed a copy of letter of the O.P. dated 14.10.1988 by which he was given time to 15.11.1988 for making payment of 3rd instalment.

We have heard the complainant and have also carefully gone through the various documents filed in evidence on behalf of the complainant.

ON the face of it, it appears that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides: 24A. Limitation period-(1) The District Forum, 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 Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he has sufficient cause for not filing the complaint with such period : Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

In the instant case, the complainant opted for three-bedroom flat on 5.8.1985 and was allotted two-bedroom flat on 26.9.1985. The complainant agreed to pay the pending instalments due till the year 1987 and sent three cheques of different amounts in the year 1988. The cheques were returned by the O.P. Society to the complainant on 19.11.1988, it appears that he slept over the matter for several years and filed the present complaint in the year 1997. The complaint should have been filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the instant case, the cause of action has arisen on 15.8.1985 when the complainant applied and opted for three-bedroom flat and was allotted two-bedroom flat on 20.9.1985. The complainant has challenged this allotment on the ground that he opted for three-bedroom flat and he was not allotted three-bedroom flat even though he was a founder member of the Society. The complainant could not explain as to why he slept over the matter for several years and filed his complaint after passing of several years from the date of cause of action. The complainant has also not shown any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within two years. Moreover, no application has been filed by the complainant for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Hence we are of the view that the complaint has not been filed within the prescribed period of two years and is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Act. Hence no relief can be granted to the complainant and the above mentioned complaint, filed by the complainant, is dismissed as time-barred.

THE above mentioned complaint, filed by the complainant, is disposed of in above terms. Complaint dismissed.