IMPROVEMENT TRUST, FARIDKOT THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER vs Bhupinder Kaur

SINCE after passing of the impugned order by the District Forum, Faridkot on May 18, 1998, the appellant has already executed transfer deed in favour of the complainant, thus on merits, the claim of the complaint stands satisfied and it is only academic that we have to mention certain legal aspects of the matter so that in future the same may be considered as guidance by the FORA. With regard to other relief, the appellant will get benefit i.e., with regard to compensation of Rs. 2,500/- and costs of Rs. 500/-.

IN an auction conducted by Improvement Trust, Faridkot, Shop No. 27 was auctioned for Rs. 30,100/- in favour of the complainant Bhupinder Kaur. Since the amount of the sale consideration was payable in instalments, as per allegations of the complainant, the same having been paid, the Improvement Trust was not executing the sale deed and for not issuing the no objection certificate that the complaint was filed on December 2, 1997. Plea of limitation was taken by the Improvement Trust as one of the preliminary objections. Other plea was that the complainant did not disclose any cause of action. On merits further pleas were taken that some instalments were paid late on which the Improvement Trust was entitled to claim penalty/penal interest and that the plot was resumed on January 11, 1994. At this stage we only refer to the plea of limitation as well as the other preliminary objections raised. At the out-set, it may be stated that in the case of auction held by the authorities with respect to sale of plots or land, there is no question of hiring services by the complainant of such authorities for consideration. IN such like cases, particularly in the present case, there is no question raised of any defect in the goods sold as it was only a plot. For other contested allegations, no comment on merits is required as the matter was to be agitated before the Civil Court and not before the FORA as the complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. For the cause of action accruing prior to June, 1993 a period of three years limitation was prevalent and for the cause of action accruing thereafter the period of limitation is governed by Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides a period of two years limitation only. It may be observed that any correspondence between the parties will not give a fresh cause of action for filing the complaint. The auction took place in 1981 and as per allegations of the opposite party the plot was resumed on January 11,1994. Even if there was some correspondence, sent by the complainant, that will not give fresh cause of action. On February 17, 1995 the Improvement Trust is alleged to have written a letter to the complainant to pay Rs. 7,586/- and on doing so, they would issue the no due certificate. Assuming that to be the date of cause of action, the complaint was required to be filed within a period of two years. The present complaint filed on December 2, 1997 is clearly barred by time.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. As already stated above, the Conveyance Deed has already been executed by the Improvement Trust in favour of the complainant. With regards to the compensations and costs, the impugned order stands set aside. Appeal allowed.