AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These 9 Revision Petitions, by the Complainants, are directed against the orders dated 22.9.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No.891 - 899 of 2013. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 17.7.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaints No.376 - 384 of 2013. By the said orders, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaints on the ground that the same were barred by limitation.
Despite service of Notice on the Respondents, the Opposite Parties in the Complaints, both the Respondents remain unrepresented. Accordingly, we have heard Learned counsel for the Complainants.
The short grievance of the Complainants in their respective Complaints was that although the possession of the respective units/flats had been delivered to them in March 1999 and they have been in physical possession thereof since then, and even mutations in their names have been carried out in the records of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, yet the Respondents have failed to execute the Sale Deeds in their favour, despite several demands.
Having carefully perused the prayer in the Complaints and the orders passed by the lower fora, particularly the orders made by the District Forum, wherein it has been observed that although the question of registration of the Sale Deed is a matter of continuing cause of action, but surprisingly the Complainants had been non-suited on the aforesaid ground with an observation that that they had not approached the Consumer Fora with clean hands, in our opinion, the Petitions deserve to be allowed. We are unable to decipher any reason, which prompted the District Forum to make such an observation on the conduct of the Complainants. A mere delay, which on the facts of a particular case may be fatal but it cannot be termed as contumacious in the absence of some cogent material in that behalf. In the orders passed by the State Commission, an additional comment for agreeing with the view taken by the District Forum, is that the Complainants had failed to explain a long delay of 15 years in filing the Complaints and that too without any application for condonation of delay.
In our view, having rightly observed that non-execution of Sale Deed in respect of the units/flats in question, purchased by the Complainants in terms of the Sale Agreement dated 26.8.1994 was a continuing cause of action, both the Forums below have committed material irregularity in dismissing the Complaints as barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Consequently, all the Revision Petition are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the Original Complaints are restored to the board of the District Forum for adjudication on merits.
Since the Respondents have chosen not to contest these proceedings, there will be no order as to costs.
The parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on
11.2016 for further proceedings in accordance with law.