SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA vs VARDHAMAN MAINTENANCE PVT. 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 2.11.2000, passed by District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1836/1999 - entitled Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta v. M/s. Vardhaman Maintenance Pvt. Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent in the newspapers, the appellant had booked an office space at Vardhaman Market, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi which was being constructed by the respondent. It was stated that the appellant had booked a corner office-shop having open space in the front as well as on the right side. It was stated that against the above booking the appellant was allotted a shop, bearing No. G-16 and had paid a sum of Rs. 2,79,630/- to the respondent towards the cost of that shop and some other dues as demanded by the respondent. It was stated that the appellant was handed over possession of the allotted shop on 20.9.1995 and thereafter he had put his furniture had locked that shop. It was stated that on account of his personal difficulties, the appellant could not visit the shop for a couple of years and in November, 1998 when he went to that allotted shop to start his office, he found that the front space and right side space had been covered and various structures had been raised on that area. It was stated that as a result of raising those structures the shop-cum-office, purchased by him, lost its significance. It was stated that the appellant had paid higher price for the corner shop. It was stated that the appellant met the respondent and stated his grievance but nothing was done by the respondent. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent the appellant, in the complaint, filed by him, had prayed that the respondent be directed to refund the amount deposited by him with the respondent with interest and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.12.1998 together with cost of litigation. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent it was stated that a shop was allotted to the appellant and possession of the same was also delivered to the appellant in the year 1995. It was stated in the reply that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was barred by time as the same had been filed after four years of the delivery of possession. It was stated by the respondent that the respondent had sold all the units of the Vardhman Market and had transferred absolute ownership to the various allottees of the space in the said Complex and that the respondent was not involved in the maintenance and upkeep of the said building. It was stated that till 15.7.1996 the respondent had ensured that no unauthorized construction was raised by any one but thereafter it was the duty of the appellant and other allottees to ensure that no unauthorized construction was raised at the plot. It was stated that the respondent was not liable for any deficiency in service because the respondent was not providing any service after 15.7.1996 and the respondent was in no way connected with the alleged unauthorized construction. It was also stated that the respondent had no power to remove or demolish the unauthorized construction.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and on the basis of the above finding 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 possession of the shop in question, booked by the appellant and thereafter allotted in favour of the appellant, was handed over to the appellant by the respondent on 25.9.1995. On 25.9.1995 the appellant admittedly had taken physical possession of the allotted shop by placing his furniture and putting a lock on the shop. Thus the relationship of the appellant with the respondent came to an end once the possession of the shop in question was taken by the appellant without any protest. No material has been placed on record either before the District Forum or before us which may indicate that the alleged unauthorized constructions have been raised either by the respondent or with the connivance of the respondent. As a matter of fact, in the given facts, the boot is on the other leg because the appellant himself did not care to visit the property for more than three years and for that lapse nobody else can be held responsible other than the appellant. Above all, the complaint, filed by the appellant, in the given facts was decidedly barred by limitation in terms of the provisions contained in Section 24A of the Act.

THUS, viewed from all angles, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed in-limine with no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.