Skip to main content

Complaint cannot barred by limitation, where there is case of continuing cause of action

In Anthony H. Silva Vs. Hermonie Mary Salazar, the Respondent/complainant, filed the consumer complaint before the State Commission, saying that, she alongwith her siblings were absolute owners of agricultural land measuring 4972.9 sq. mtr. alongwith structures standing thereon, at village Kondivata, Taluka Andheri East at Bombay suburban. 

The Opposite Party (OP) builder/Appellant, approached them with a proposal to take over the said land on "as is where is" basis and develop the same, by settling with the persons in occupation of the structure on the said land at his own cost and expenses and after obtaining necessary permissions and sanctions from the concerned authorities. On 7th November, 87, an agreement was entered between the complainant and four others on one side and the OP Builder on the other side, according to which, the developer was supposed to provide flats to the 5 owners, including the complainant for a total area of 8500 sq. ft. and sell the rest of the flats to various other persons and appropriate the sale proceeds thereof. The flats were to be provided to the complainants on ownership basis. It is alleged that, the developer completed the construction of the building, but failed to put the complainant in possession of the flat, to which she was entitled as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The main issue that arises for our consideration is whether the consumer fora had the jurisdiction to deal with the consumer complaint in question and that whether the consumer complaint was barred by limitation under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

In "Bunga Daniel Babu versus M/s. Sri Vasudeva Constructions & Ors." the Apex Court brought out clearly that, in cases where development is made by a developer on the property provided by the land owner, and in lieu of that a certain portion of the developed property is to be provided to the land owner, the Builder does come under the definition of 'service provider' vis-à-vis the land owner and hence, the land-owner does come under the definition of consumer. There is only one rider provided in the matter that the land-owner should not be an active participant in managing the affairs of the builder. In the present case, it is made out that the complainant alongwith her siblings made her property available to the OP and she had no role in the management of the affairs of the Builder. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex court in "Bunga Daniel Babu versus M/s. Sri Vasudeva Constructions & Ors.", therefore, the complainant does fall under the definition of 'consumer' vis-à-vis the OP Builder. It is held, therefore, that the complainant is a consumer vis-à-vis OP Builder and hence, the consumer fora had the jurisdiction to handle the consumer complaint in question. 

The Appellant/OP has stated that, the agreement between the parties was entered in the year 1987 and according to the same, the property was to be provided to the complainant within a period of 3 years. However, it is their own version that they offered the possession of the property to the complainant in or around the year 1994 only, meaning thereby that they failed to take action in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is also the case of the OP that they provided flats having built-up area of 950 sq. ft. each to the land owners at a different locality in lieu of built-up area of 1700 sq. ft. each to be provided under the agreement dated 07.11.87. The allegations levelled by the complainant, therefore, that the OP failed to provide her a flat, having area of 1700 sq. ft. as promised, is true. This would, therefore, be a case of continuing cause of action till the flat is provided to the complainant as per the agreement between the parties. Even if the complainant failed to file the consumer complaint within a period of 2 years as prescribed under Section 24A of the Act, she cannot be debarred from filing the same after the expiry of the said period, as she cannot be denied the offer of flat in terms of the agreement. The complaint was not barred by limitation, as it is a case of continuing cause of action. 

Vide impugned order, the State Commission directed the OP to handover the possession of the flat or flats having aggregate area of 1700 sq. ft. to the complainant in terms of the agreement dated 07.11.1987 and also to provide compensation of 50,000/- for mental agony and 10,000/- as cost of litigation. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order, which may call for any interference in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission upheld.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more