S.C. KHOSLA vs ASHOK CHHABRA, OWNER MAHALAKSHMI LAND AND FINANCE CO. LTD .

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 20.12.2001, passed by District Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2828/1999 entitled Shri S.C. Khosla v. Shri Ashok Chhabra, Owner, Mahalakshmi Land and Finance Co. Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Sh. S.C. Khosla had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that the appellant had booked a plot, bearing No. 300, measuring 166 sq. yds., situated at Shalimar Garden No. 1, Sahibabad, Distt. Ghaziabad and an agreement dated 20.8.1960 was executed between the appellant and the respondent. It was stated that in terms of the agreement executed between the parties the appellant deposited 25% of the cost of the plot, amounting to Rs. 498/- on 20.8.1960 itself and the balance amount towards the cost of the above said plot was paid by the appellant to the respondent in instalments and the last payment was made by the appellant to the respondent on 21.6.1992. THE grievance of the appellant in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum was that the plot offered was of a bigger size (280 sq. yds.), whereas the area booked by the appellant was 166 sq. yds. only. It was stated that on being contacted the appellant was informed by the respondent that the plot admeasuring 280 sq. yds. had two parts - one measuring 140 sq. yds. and the other one measuring 166 sq. yds. It was prayed by the appellant in the complaint, filed by him, that the respondent be directed to give the possession of another plot of the same area in lieu of the plot booked by him with the respondent. In the alternative it was prayed that the respondent be directed to refund the amount deposited with interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent, while admitting the booking of the plot on 20.8.1960 and also admitting the last payment made on 21.6.1992, it was stated that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was barred by limitation within the meaning of Section 24A of the Act. On merits it was stated that the appellant had paid only a sum of Rs. 1,992/- towards the cost of the plot, booked by him and thereafter failed to pay the balance amount and, therefore, breached the terms and conditions of allotment. It was stated that the cancellation of allotment of the plot in question had already been informed by the respondent to the appellant on 7.7.1982.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was barred by limitation and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record it is not in dispute that the plot in question was booked by the appellant on 20.8.1960 and the last payment towards the cost of the plot in question was made by the appellant in the year 1992. Moreover, the respondent had also intimated about the cancellation of the plot in question in favour of the appellant long back. The correctness of the above facts was not disputed by the appellant before us. In the presence of the above facts, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned District Forum. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well-reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed in limine.