Sonamoni Biswas vs Peerless Developers Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants against the order dated 10.05.2012 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ''the State Commission '') in S.C. Case No. FA/280/2011 - M/s. Peerless Developers Ltd. Vs. Sonamoni Biswas & Anr. by which, appeal filed by the appellants/present respondents was allowed and order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner booked a flat with OP/respondents on 16.8.2004 and paid Rs.50,000/- towards consideration of the flat. Agreement was executed on 28.9.2004 between the parties and the complainant paid full price of the flat and deed of conveyance was executed by OP in favour of the complainant on 29.3.2007 and possession was received by the complainant on 9.4.2007. After taking possession of the flat, complainant noticed some defects in the flat and took up the matter with the OP over telephone and also by personal visits to the office of the OP. Complainant also wrote letter on 16.7.2007 for redressal of grievances. As the grievances were not sorted out, complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint. OP resisted claim. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to remove defects or pay Rs.1,58,000 as estimated cost of repair along with 18% p.a. interest and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation. OP filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal on merits as well as on the ground that complaint was time barred against which order, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.

IT is admitted case of the parties that petitioner obtained possession of the flat on 9.4.2007 in pursuance to deed of conveyance executed on 29.3.2007. It is also admitted case of the complainant that in April, 2007, he pointed out defects in the flat to OP on telephone as well as by personal visits. It is also admitted case on the part of complainant that letter pointing out defects was written by the complainant to the OP on 16.7.2007. It is also admitted fact that complaint was filed before the District Forum on 19.4.2010 meaning thereby after almost 3 years of taking possession, whereas complaint was required to be filed within a period of 2 years. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not moved any application under section 24A of the C.P. Act for condonation of delay before the District Forum and in such circumstances, complaint filed by the complainant is time barred and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint, but learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint, as time barred.

LEARNED State Commission has also observed by detailed discussion that as per joint inspection report, flat was habitable and in sound condition and no repairing was required and learned State Commission has rightly allowed appeal and dismissed complaint on merits as well as on the ground of complaint being time barred. We do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.