Monday , 24 September 2018
TRENDING NOW

National Commission upholds state order in real estate complaint

By Adv. Jatin Ramaiya

Susheela Homes & Properties Pvt. Ltd a real estate developer approached, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, against the order passed by Goa State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panaji by which the State Commission allowed application for condonation of delay in filing a consumer complaint by Sandeep Sharma.

The National Commission heard the counsel appearing for the real estate developer and considered the merits of the revision preferred by the developer.

The National Commission observed that in the application filed by Sharma, on which the impugned order has been passed, it was stated that being the eldest son, he was involved in taking care of his aged parents, in particular attending to the medical emergency involving his 88 years old father, who had suffered a disc injury, and so the complaint could not be filed within time.  It was also urged that since the developer had failed to provide the occupancy certificate and had not executed the conveyance deed in respect of the flat he had purchased from the petitioner, it was a continuing cause of action and hence the complaint was otherwise within the period of limitation, as stipulated in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”).

The Apex Commission observed, “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the opinion that the appeal is bereft of any merit.  Apart from the fact that non-supply of the occupation certificate and non-execution of the conveyance deed is a continuing cause of action, even otherwise, on facts at hand, it cannot be held that the State Commission has committed any illegality, legal or factual, in the exercise of the discretion vested in it to condone the delay, if any, in filing the Complaint.”

The Apex Commission held that in case a builder does not execute a conveyance in favour of purchaser of premises or has not provide occupancy certificate the same would be continuing cause of action and therefore there was no perversity in the State Commission’s order.

Please like & share: