1. MR. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member-Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that plot No. 656, measuring 420 sq. mtrs. in Sector 15, Part-I, Gurgaon was allotted to Smt. Sumitra Devi vide Memo No. 30 dated 20.1.1987 by Haryana Urban Development Authority-opposite party for a total consideration of Rs. 1,39,750. Smt. Sumitra Devi transferred the plot in favour of Smt. Bimla Devi Yadav with the permission of the Estate Officer, Gurgaon. Smt. Bimla Devi Yadav transferred the plot in favour of the complainant with the permission of the said Estate Officer and same was re-allotted to the complainant vide Memo No. 1588 dated 9.11.1990 by the opposite party-Authority. Estate Officer, Gurgaon vide Memo No. 1314 dated 24.1.1992 offered possession of plot No. 656 to the complainant. It was further alleged that vide Memo No. 287 dated 29.10.1992 the Estate Officer, Gurgaon allotted alternative plot No. 636-C in Sector 15 in lieu of plot No. 656 to the complainant. Memo No. 287 notices that plot No. 656 could not be adjusted on the site due to the fact that some pockets were short of the area shown in the Lay out Plan while some of the pockets had excess area. Opposite Party-Authority earmarked new plot Nos. 636-A to 636-H in the original row of plot Nos. 636 to 667 in which plot No. 656 was situated. Said Memo further notices that plot No. 654 to 656 were deleted from the said row. It was claimed that the market value of new plot No. 636-C is much less compared to value of plot No. 656. It was pleaded that the complainant had come to know that the then Chief Administrator of the opposite party-Authority did the said exercise in order to favour certain VIPs. Action of the Authority in deleting plot No. 656 was wholly arbitrary. Attributing deficiency in service, direction was sought to be passed against the opposite party to deliver possession of aforesaid plot No. 656; pay compensation on account of escalation in construction cost amounting to Rs. 27,89,876 calculated as per CPWD rates; pay compound interest of Rs. 4,50,000, pay compensation for mental agony amounting to Rs. 25 lakh; pay loss of earning of rent of Rs. 11,11,320; pay escalated charges paid to the Architect amounting to Rs. 55,798; pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for pursuing the case as also the cost, to the complainant. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 contested the complaint by filing joint written version. Complaint was stated to be barred by limitation. It was admitted that complainant was re-allotted plot No. 656 in Sector 15, Part-I, Gurgaon as alleged. However, it was stated that vide Memo No. 287 dated 29.10.1992 the complainant was allotted alternative plot No. 636-C as it was beyond the control of answering opposite parties to hand over possession of plot No. 656. Area of the pocket wherein plot No. 656 was located, was found short. It was stated that location of plot No. 636-C is very much similar to that of plot No. 656. Despite offer of possession of alternative plot the complainant did not take possession thereof and start construction within the stipulated period of two years. Plots allotted out of Haryana Government DQ quota allotted after 31.10.1989 have been cancelled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP-Anil Sabarwal v. State of Haryana. Interest is charged on late payment of instalments as per the policy. It was denied that complainant had suffered any loss and is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
2. AT this juncture reference need be made to the order dated 15th December, 2008. Omitting immaterial portion, the same reads thus:
"Learned Counsel for the complainant, under instructions from the complainant, states that without prejudice to his rights, pleas and contentions raised in the present complaint, the complainant is willing to take vacant physical possession of Plot No. 636-C, Sector 15, Part I, Gurgaon. The question of damages for compensation, if any, and to what extent, may await till then. We, therefore, direct the opposite party, HUDA through Estate Officer, Gurgaon to hand over vacant physical possession of the plot No. 636-C, Sector-15, Part I, Gurgaon to the complainant within a period of four weeks from today, which will be deemed effective from the date when actual possession is handed over to the complainant. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Chief Administrator as well as Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon for compliance".
Undisputedly, pursuant to this order the possession of said plot No. 636-C was given to the complainant on 20.4.2009.3. AT the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that one of the pleas taken in joint written version is that the complaint is barred by limitation. During the course of arguments this plea was strongly pressed on behalf of the opposite party-Authority by Mr. Badhran, Advocate. In para No. 2 of the complaint the complainant has alleged that complaint is being filed within the period of two years as prescribed by Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act''). Para No. 2 of the complaint being material, is reproduced below:
"That the cause of action for the present case arose to complainant on 9.11.1990 the date of initial allotment and then on 5.11.1998, when inspite of serving the legal notice vide registered letter No. 1418 dated 5.11.1998 calling upon the respondent to hand over the possession of said plot but no action was taken by the respondents. It may further be mentioned that otherwise also the cause of action is continuously arising on each and every day as the respondents are not handing over the possession of the plot without any justifiable reason. As such the present complaint is being filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 24A of the Act".
4. SAID 9.11.1990 is the date of re-allotment of plot No. 656 to the complainant. It is not in dispute that thereafter in lieu of plot No. 656 the complainant was allotted alternative plot No. 636-C on 29.10.1992. Complainant alleges that allotment of this alternative plot by the opposite party-Authority was wholly arbitrary. He claimed delivery of possession of plot No. 656. Obviously, cause of action to file complaint arose to the complainant immediately on receipt of Memo No. 287 dated 29.10.1992 allotting alternative plot No. 636-C by the Authority. Complaint was filed on 10.2.1999 after more than 6 years of the allotment of the said alternative plot. It is settled law that limitation once start running would not stop. Service of legal notice dated 5.11.1998 sent much after the expiry of period of limitation of two years as provided in Section 24A of the Act will not extend the limitation nor are we inclined to accept the plea taken in aforesaid para-2 of the complaint that cause of action is continuing one. Along with complaint the complainant has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay beyond two years of the accrual of cause of action. Complaint, thus, deserves to be dismissed being hopelessly barred by limitation. In the facts and circumstances of case, it would however, be equitable that complainant is not asked to give back the possession of plot No. 636-C, the possession whereof was given on 20.4.2009 and 20.4.2009 is treated as date of offer of possession of the said plot.
5. CONSEQUENTLY, the complaint is dismissed as barred by time. However, complainant will retain possession of plot No. 636-C as allottee thereof and 20.4.2009 will be treated as date of offer of possession. We hasten to add that the complainant will not be entitled to any interest on the amounts paid to the opposite party-Authority uptill 19.4.2009. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.
