SAI DATTA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS vs SHANTARAM A NAIK

-THIS order will govern the disposal of RP Nos. 3780 of 2007, 3781 of 2007, 3782 of 2007 and 3783 of 2007 which arise out of identical orders passed in FA Nos. 1405 of 2006, 1406 of 2006, 1407 of 2006 and 1408 of 2006 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai dismissing appeals against the order (s) dated 17. 5. 2006 of a District Forum. Petitioners who were opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5, along with O. P. No. 6 have been directed jointly and severally to refund certain amounts together with interest to respondent No. 1/complainant.

PETITIONER Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of M/s. Sai Datta Developers and Promoters- petitioner No. 1 to whom the payments were made by respondent No. 1 in each case for providing flats in the building to be constructed. Mr. S. B. Prabhavalkar for the petitioners states that the petitioners do not deny the liability for refund of the amounts paid. However, he submits that the complaints filed were barred by limitation and as respondent No. 1 had cancelled the booking by the letter dated 12. 6. 1997, the service to be provided by the petitioners came to an end and the dispute, therefore, could be decided only by the Civil Court and not Consumer Fora. In RP No. 3780 of 2007, complaint was stated to have been filed on 18. 4. 2001 and the two cheques dated 2. 8. 1997 and 19. 4. 1999 issued by petitioner No. 3 to respondent No. 1 had been dishonoured. According to Mr. Prabhavalkar, the limitation for the purpose of filing complaint will start running from the date of dishonour of the first cheque i. e. 2. 8. 1997 but the complaint was filed beyond period two years thereof on 18. 4. 2001. Factual position in remaining three revision petitions is stated to be identical. Sub-section (1) of Section 24a of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) dealing with limitation period provides that the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit the complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date of which the case of action has arisen. Dishonour of first cheque dated 2. 8. 1997 partially formed part of cause of action which culminated furnishing complete cause of action to respondent No. 1 with the bouncing of second cheque dated 19. 4. 1999. Thus, taking the date of dishonour of the cheque dated 19. 4. 1999, the complaint filed on 18. 4. 2001 was within limitation. Coming to second limb of argument, it may be mentioned that the remedy provided under the Act is in addition and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force, under Section 3 of the Act. Thus, consequent upon the cancellation of booking by the letter dated 12. 6. 1997, it was open to respondent No. 1 to have filed complaint under the Act for refund of the amounts paid together with interest Thus, above limb of argument deserves to be repelled being without any merit.

There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in aforesaid orders passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Act. Revisions are, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.