AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 390 words-AGGRIEVED by the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai passed in F. A. No. 644 of 2007 dated 16. 1. 2008, the complainants, Mr. Sudhakar Ramakant Kulkarni and Smt. Sneha Sudhakar Kulkarni (for short ''the complainant'') have filed this Revision Petition before us.
THERE is delay of 39 days in filing this revision petition satisfied with the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, the delay is condoned. The issue involved in this case falls in narrow compass. The complainants have purchased shop unit B-2 located at Parshuratna Complex as per sale deed dated 20. 5. 1997 from M/s. B. P. Developers and Builders (for short ''the builders'') and the complainants got the possession of shop on the same day. The case of the complainant is that the builder has given them lesser area of 100 sq. ft. which came to their knowledge on 21. 7. 2005 when they received a letter from Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, they approached the builder claiming an amount of Rs. 92,916 as price for 100 sq. ft. On builder rejecting their request they filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum was pleased to allow the complaint partly and directed the builder to refund the excess amount of Rs. 73,770 along with Rs. 2,000 as costs.
Dis-SATISFIED with the order of the District Forum, the builder filed an appeal before the State Commission claiming that the complaint was filed belatedly as the cause of action arose in the year 1997 and the complaint was filed in the year 2005. Accordingly,the State Commission allowed the appeal of the builder and set aside the order of the District Forum by dismissing the complaint itself.
IT is undisputed fact that the possession of the premises was handed over in the year 1997 and no convincing reason has been adduced by the petitioners for having filed conumser complaint after a lapse of 8 years. Letter received from the Gram Panchayat cannot give a cause of action to the complainant. The order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.