Skip to main content

The period of delay is to be counted from the knowledge of the deficiency

In Vinod Kumar Kataria Vs. Arufa,  first appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the order passed by the State Commission. Appellant/complainant had purchased the first floor of the property from the opposite party and sale deed was executed in his favour. The possession of the flat in question was handed over to the complainant in October 2012. It was alleged that, after shifting in the aforesaid premises, the complainant realized that, the OP had used inferior quality material in the construction of the flat and noticed major defects. Based on this fact, the complainant filed complaint before the State Commission for refund of the total amount of purchase price amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- alongwith Rs. 1,50,000/- as expense of sale deed. The State Commission, however, dismissed the complaint at the admission stage on the ground of limitation and on the ground that other occupants have filed a civil suit for illegal construction and the complainant may also join the same.

From the facts of the case, it is clear that sale deed was executed on 22nd August, 2012 and the possession was handed over in October, 2012. The complaint has been filed on 14th June, 2016. The State Commission has relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Dr. Gopal and Another Vs. Deorao Ganpat Kaore and others, wherein, it has been held that, the period of limitation in respect of patent defects will commence from a date later on the date on which the said patent defects comes to the notice of the complainant. No doubt, a builder is under an obligation to rectify the defects, if any, found in the house constructed by him, but if he fails to do so, the complainant is required to approach a consumer forum within two years from the date on which the said defect is noticed by him for the first time. In case he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing a complaint within the prescribed period of limitation, he must file an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint.

In the present case also, the Appellant has not produced any acknowledgment by the builder that, he admits the defects and that he promised to rectify the same within a particular period. Thus, from the above observation of this Commission, it is clear that the cause of action could not be treated as continuing one. The period of delay is to be counted from the knowledge of the deficiency. In fact, the cause of action has arisen on the date when the possession was taken by the appellant/complainant and it cannot be treated as extended by way of any correspondence between the parties.

The National Commission dismissed the appeal holding that, the complaint was highly time barred and no application for condonation of delay was moved before the State Commission, therefore, the State Commission was totally justified in dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation. Moreover, the State Commission has also noted that, a civil case has been filed by the other occupants for the alleged illegal construction in the parking space by the opposite party and the complainant has been given liberty to join the same. If a matter is already pending adjudication in a civil Court, the same cannot be considered by the consumer forum simultaneously. Hence, this part of the order of the State Commission is also justified.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more