K.K.M. Kesavan vs V.G.P. INVESTMENTS

THE complainant''s case in short is that he joined the scheme floated by the opposite parties for purchase of house sites through their authorised representatives who collected instalments every month regularly. THE complainant was allotted Plot No. 782 with a total area of 2400 sq. ft. in V.G.P. Sri Chakra Town Part I at Sriperumpudur. As and when demanded by the opposite parties, the complainant paid the instalments. Till 9.1.1990 a total sum of Rs. 6,000/- was paid. THE complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,200/- towards balance of cost. THE Sales Manager of the opposite parties did not issue any cash receipt. THE payment was also not entered in the passbook. THE complainant waited for about two years and finally met the 1st opposite party in person and demanded registration of document and handed over physical possession on receipt of necessary documentation charges. THE complainant was convinced that the opposite parties will take suitable steps to register the documents. THE opposite parties having received a total sum of Rs. 7,200/- are bound to execute the sale deed, get the plot registered and deliver possession of the same. THErefore, it amounts to deficiency in service. THE complainant estimated the loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and prays for a suitable direction.

THE opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a consumer and that the dispute is not a consumer dispute. Further, they also contended that he had paid only a sum of Rs. 6,000/- upto 9.1.1990 and that the complainant failed to pay the sum of Rs. 1,200/- and, therefore, the transaction falls through because of the default committed by the complainant. THEre is no deficiency in service. THE opposite parties are not bound to execute any sale deed or get it registered. THE complaint is filed after the lapse of 8 years. THE claim is barred by limitation. The lower Forum of course held that the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute is not a consumer dispute. On that finding, it dismissed the complaint.

In view of the rulings of the National Commission and various other State Commissions, though the scheme relates to allotment of a land pursuant to which agreement has to be executed by the opposite parties, still if the conditions are not complied with that would amount to deficiency in service and, therefore, a Consumer Court can step in and the dispute is of the nature referred to in the Act and, therefore, the Court will have jurisdiction. Therefore, the finding of the lower Forum that the complainant is not a consumer and it is not a consumer dispute cannot be maintained at all.

HOWEVER, it has to be seen whether there is any deficiency in service and that the complaint is in time. No doubt, the lower Forum has not chosen to discuss these aspects or give any finding in this regard. The fact remains that the agreement is of the year 1990. The complainant has to pay a total sum of Rs. 7,200/- in monthly instalments payable at Rs. 150/- per month. The record produced by the complainant himself would show that he paid the amount till 9.1.1990 totalling to Rs. 6,000/-. Though, he claims to have paid the balance of Rs. 1,200/-, there is no proof for the same. In fact, the opposite parties have written to the complainant that their representative will be visiting Erode and that payments have to be made there. But, the payments have not been made. Therefore, when the complainant has not paid the balance of Rs. 1,200/-, the transaction of sale will not, therefore, become concluded and when the transaction is thus not concluded, there is no obligation on the part of the opposite parties to execute the sale deed and register the document or hand over possession. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have to hold that there is no deficiency in service. Even otherwise, the complaint has to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite parties on 15.5.1996. The complaint has been filed on 14.5.1998. The letter of the opposite parties is dated 11.5.1990. That is the starting point of limitation. Section 24-A provides that "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". It also provides that in spite of anything contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 24-A, the Forum of the Commission can entertain a complaint filed after the period specified in Sub-section (1) if sufficient cause is shown. This particular Section 24-A was inserted by Act 50/93. Before the amendment, the period of limitation was only one year. That has been now made two years by recent amendment which has come into existence on 18.6.1993. Therefore, on the date when the complaint was filed it stood barred by limitation. Hence, on this ground as well, the complaint has to be dismissed. Therefore, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal and consequently the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed with cost confirming the order passed by the lower Forum. Cost Rs. 250/-. Appeal dismissed.