- (1.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Bhavnagar on 14.5.2008 in Consumer Case No.101 of 2007 which came to be partly allowed, .the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds stated in the appeal memo. Main contention of the appellants is that the complaint was clearly time barred and no delay condonation application was given by the respondents with complaint. The order of learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on merits is illegal. The appellants are original opponents and respondents are original complaints and they are referred to their original nomenclature for the sake of convenience.
(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the opponents had floated a scheme of 16 flats in 1997 known as 'Gautam Krupa'. The complainants had joined the scheme and the opponents had executed sale deed also in their favour. The complainants however cleverly have not stated the date of sale document and kept the same as blank as disclosed from para 3 of page 4 of their complaint produced at page 27. The complainants are also silent about the date of possession of the flats in question. The say of the opponents in their reply filed at annex -ure page 39 of the compilation and page 4 para I A, it is stated by the opponents that the complainants are in possession of the respective ; flats since last four years. In the appeal memo at page 7 para (a) it is stated that the opponents had given possession of the flats at the time of execution of registered sale deed in the year 2003. Admittedly the complaint was filed on 17.5.2007 and the sale deed was executed in the year 2003. It would thus mean that the complainants were in possession since last four years prior to filing the complaint. It is also made out from the facts of the case that the complainants knew very well at the time of purchasing the flats and taking possession thereof that the construction was incomplete. The alleged agreement dated 26.6.2004 has been executed when the complainants were already in possession of the flats.
(3.) AS far as legal position is concerned, it has been now settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 1 CPJ 29. inter alia holding that the provisions as to limitation is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum however for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression 'shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A of the Act is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for reasons recorded in writing, In the recent case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Indu Ahuja,2011 3 CPJ 115. the complainant purchased the plot fully aware of the situation prevailing on it and she took the possession in 1993 and filed complaint in the year 2002, it was held that case of complainant was clearly barred by limitation and the orders of the Forum in favour of the original complainant were set -aside.;