NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1058 OF 2014

(Against the Order dated 09/12/2013 in Appeal No. 53/2013 & 53/2013 of the State Commission
Maharastra)
1. M/S. RAVI DEVELOPMENT BUILDERS AND
DEVELOPERS & 3 ORS.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING CORPORATE,
OFFICE AT LAXMI PALACE, 76 MATHURADAS
ROAD, KANDIVALI(WEST)
MUMBAI - 400 067
MAHARASHTRA
2. MR.TOKARSHI SHAH,
HAVING ADDRESS AT LAXMI PALACE, 76
MATHURADAS ROAD, KANDIVALI(WEST)
MUMBAI - 400 067
MAHARASHTRA
3. MR.KETAN SHAH,
HAVING ADDRESS AT LAXMI PALACE, 76
MATHURADAS ROAD, KANDIVALI(WEST)
MUMBAI - 400 067
MAHARASHTRA
4. MR,JAYESH SHAH,
HAVING ADDRESS AT LAXMI PALACE, 76
MATHURADAS ROAD, KANDIVALI(WEST)
MUMBAI - 400 067
MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. JAYANTIBHAI V RANKA & ANR.
R/O 15,SAVITA SADAN, DUBHASH LANE,V.P
ROAD,
MUMBAI - 400 004
MAHARASHTRA
2. MRS.ARUNABEN K KAPADIA,
RESIDING AT A.K JEWELLERS, THAKURSWAR
GIRAGAON ROAD, OPP GOIDEN WILL
RESTAURANT,
MUMBAI - 400 004
MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)

-1-
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner : Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Advocate

Dated : 18 Feb 2014

PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Being aggrieved by order dated
9.12.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for
short, tate Commission, Petitioners/OP Nos.1 to 4 have filed the present revision petition under
Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ct. 2. Respondent No.1/Complainant
filed a consumer complaint against the petitioners before the State Commission. Alongwith it, an
application seeking condonation of delay of 16.6 years (6019 days) was also filed. 3. Petitioners
opposed the application for condonation of delay by filing reply to the same. 4. Respondents no.1
and 2 jointly booked a bungalow in the project launched by the petitioners. As per allotment letter
dated 20.1.1995, respondents were allotted Bungalow No.18 in the proposed site by the
petitioners. It is stated that respondent no.1 alongwith respondent no.2 paid total consideration of
Rs.3,32,000/- jointly, being part consideration. It is alleged that till date, petitioners had not
executed regular agreement for sale. Respondent no.1 had been asking the petitioners about status
of the bungalow. It is also alleged that petitioners never informed him that local authorities have
raised certain technical objections. In the meanwhile, respondent no.2 without the knowledge of
respondent no.1, had accepted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioners in the year 2002.
Thereafter, respondent no.1 served a legal notice on 17.9.20012. In reply, the petitioners stated for
the first time that allotment of respondent no.1 has been cancelled and terminated in 1996. It is
stated that respondents have not received any alleged termination letter dated 23.3.1996. It is
further stated even after the alleged termination, petitioners had received a sum of Rs.75,000/-
from respondent no.1. 5. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed by respondent no.1 seeking
directions to the petitioners to handover vacant possession of the bungalow or to provide any
other suitable bungalow/flat in the same area. In the alternative to pay the principal amount
alongwith 24% p.a. interest. 6. The complaint was contested by the petitioners, who in their
written statement has taken the plea that since respondent no.1 has not made the balance payment,
allotment of the bungalow was cancelled, vide letter dated 23.3.1996. Thus, the complaint filed by
respondent no.1 in the year 2013 is hopelessly barred by limitation. 7. The State Commission,
while deciding the question of condonation of delay held; eard both the parties on the point of
delay condonation application. It appears that bungalow no.18 in the project known as Gaurav
Enclave was allotted to the complainant by an allotment letter dated 28/01/1995. From time to
time, instalments were accepted from the complainant by the opponent no.1 to 4. The complainant
filed the complaint for claiming possession of the bungalow as per the allotment. Claiming
possession of the allotted bungalow is continuous cause of action. Therefore, there is no question
of delay on the part of complainant. Hence, application for condonation of delay disposed off with
these observations. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the
record. 9. Relevant terms of allotment letter dated January 20, 1995 state as under; e are pleased to
inform you that we have allotted Bungalow No.18 in Plot 1 as requested by you in our proposed

-2-
project known as AURAV ENCLAVEunder consideration of the Plot bearing Survey No.73 to
76, 79 Near Green Court Club Village Ghodbunder, Taluka & District Thane, in your favour. The
area of the said Bungalow is 1250 Sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.901/-. The total value of the said
Bungalow is Rs.11,26,250/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty
only) We further confirm that we have received a sum of Rs.31,000/- (Rupees Thirty one
Thousand only) by two cheques against the said Bungalow as follows: Amount Cheque No. Dated
Bank & Branch Rs.15,500/- 888958 19/01/95 B.O.I,Bullion Exchange Rs.15,500/- 269541
21/01/95 Janta Sahkari Bank Ltd., Girgam Immediately after the execution of regular Agreement
for Sale between the Parties herewith, this allotment letter shall have no effect and it will be
treated as null and void subsequently. And the amount on paid hereinabove will be adjusted in the
Agreement value. 10. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners till date, have executed
any regular agreement for sale as per above allotment letter. Be that as it may, it is an admitted
fact that the petitioners had received a sum of Rs.3,32,000/- from respondent no.1 as well as
respondent no.2, though in the year 2002, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was refunded to respondent no.2
by the petitioners. However, no explanation been given by the petitioners as to why the bungalow
in question in view of allotment letter dated 20.1.1995 has not been allotted to respondent no.1
and why regular agreement for sale has not been executed so far. Another aspect is that the
petitioners after alleged termination of the allotment, have accepted Rs.1,00,000/- from
respondent no.1 and 2 jointly on 1.8.1996. Thereafter, again petitioners had received a further sum
of Rs.25,000/- jointly from respondents no.1 and 2, on 18.11.1996. We fail to understand when as
per petitionerscase, the allotment stood cancelled in March, 1996, then where was the occasion for
them to accept further payment in the month of August and November, 1996. This shows mala
fide act on the part of the petitioners. Further, petitioners have not handed over the possession of
the bungalow in question so far nor have refunded the amount paid by respondent no.1. Certainly
there is a continuous cause of action in favour of respondent no.1. 11. This Commission in uliet
Vs. Quadros Vs. M/s. Mrs. Malthi Kumar, IV (2005) CPJ 51 (NC) has held that ause of action
remains continuous till allotment of site or refusal. 12. Same view was taken in Lata Construction
& others Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Another, III (1999) CPJ 46 (State
Commission). 13. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaint filed by
respondent no.1 is barred by limitation. The order passed by the State Commission do not suffer
from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error from any angle. Therefore, the impugned order
hereby is confirmed and revision petition is ordered to be dismissed, with no order as to costs.

......................J
V.B. GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
REKHA GUPTA
MEMBER

-3-