THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :13404 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari declaring the order passed in C.D.No.127 of 2007 by the District Forum-II, Vijayawada, which was confirmed by the State Commission in F.A.No.1787 of 2007, dated 6.04.2010 as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) before the District Consumers Redressal Forum, Krishna District at Vijayawada, alleging that she had joined as one of the members in the venture, namely, ‘Knowledge City Project’ at Pendyala Gram Panchayat, Maheswhwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, launched by the petitioners, and paid the required amount as well as instalments. Then the petitioners have allotted her plot No.75 to an extent of 200 sq. yds. The amount has to be paid in monthly instalments through the second respondent. The complainant alleges that after payment of four instalments, the agent of the petitioners failed to come to her and collect the instalments. The complainant, therefore, addressed letter dated 27.06.2005 requesting the petitioners to receive the entire amount and execute a valid registered sale deed. Since there was no reply from the petitioners, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 10.02.2007 demanding them to register the plot by receiving the balance amount, for which the petitioners replied that they would pay 60% of the amount collected from her. Hence she filed the above complaint. The petitioners filed counter before the District Forum admitting the allotment of plot No.75 to the complainant. However, it was alleged that the complainant failed to pay the instalment amount continuously for three months. and therefore, her membership was cancelled. Since the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the scheme, she is not entitled to any relief, and prayed to dismiss the complaint. The District Forum, based on the pleadings put forth by both the parties, and the documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to A.11 and B.1 to B.5, allowed the complaint directing the petitioners to execute a valid registered sale deed for plot No.75 in favour of the complainant by receiving the balance amount, and also to pay costs of Rs.2000/-; and the registration charges, if any, have to borne by the complainant. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners filed an appeal before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. The State Commission held that the first petitioner did not exercise its right to cancel the plot though it reserves its right. The petitioners ought to have issued prior notice to the complinant before cancellation. Instead it replied to the legal notice issued by the complainant, stating that they are ready and willing to refund 60% of the amount paid by her, which is against equities, and which is not reflected in any rule position relied by the petitioners. The other contention of the petitioners that the complaint is time barred is also unsustainable, since the cause of action as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act starts from the date of refusal by the opposite parties to execute the registered sale deed, and hence the District Fourm has rightly ordered for registration of plot, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending that the relief sought for by the first respondent in the complaint is to award damages of Rs.7,00,000/- and to award costs. However, the District Forum passed an award directing the petitioners to execute a registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration of the plot. The District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction and granted the relief which was not sought by the first respondent contrary to law, and on appeal, the State Commission mechanically confirmed the order of the District Forum. Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the District Forum straight away entertained the complaint after expire of period of limitation under Section 24-A of the Limitation Act, without giving reasons. He also contended that the District Forum failed to see that the first respondent did not file any application for condonation of delay and that the legal notice issued by the first respondent does not save the limitation. He further contended that the State Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief which was not sought by the first respondent. Since the first respondent has not sought for registration of plot but she sought only for damages, the District Forum ought not to have directed the petitioners to register the plot on payment of balance of sale consideration. When the first respondent is not interested in the plot, the State Commission ought not to have confirmed the order of the District Forum. The period of limitation starts from the date of expiry of seven days from the notice dated 19.01.2004 issued by the petitioners. Since the notice discloses that the first respondent has to pay the balance amount within seven days failing which the allotment stands cancelled and that the first respondent has not come forward and repay the amount within the stipulated time, her complaint is barred by limitation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that there is no plea of limitation before the State Commission. In the absence of any averment in the counter with regard to the limitation aspect, the question of State Commission considering the limitation aspect while entertaining the complaint does not arise. He also contended that the writ petition is not maintainable, since as per Section 19 of the Act, the remedy available for the petitioner is to approach the National Commission, which is the appellate authority to entertain an appeal against the orders passed by the State Commission. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the material placed before this Court. Section 24-A of the Limitation Act reads as under. 1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. 2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission, or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay. Admittedly, on receipt of notice dated 19.01.2004 issued by the petitioners demanding the first respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.12,000/-, the first respondent replied to it vide letter dated 23.02.2004 stating that she is ready and willing to pay the balance amount. Then she has paid four instalments @ Rs.2500/- p.m., and thereafter, the agent of the petitioner did not come. Hence she got issued legal notice on 10.02.2007 calling upon the petitioners to register the plot in her name. Having received the legal notice the petitioners got issued a reply notice dated 26.02.2007 agreeing to pay 60% of Rs.21,000/- instead of allotting plot. Hence, the first respondent lodged the complaint. Both the Primary as well as the Appellate Forums have given cogent and convincing reasons. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint is barred by limitation cannot be accepted for the reason that the cause of action is continuing since the petitioners have partly accepted the amount and thereafter their agent did not come to the place of the first respondent, which prompted her to issue legal notice dated 10.02.2007 requesting the petitioners to take steps to allot the plot by receiving the entire due amount in lumpsum. Since the petitioners have accepted the part payments, it gives rise to cause of action. Hence, the State Commission rightly entertained the appeal and negatived the contention with regard to plea of limitation. The second contention of the petitioners that since the first respondent is not interested in registration of plot and she sought for only damages, the State Commission ought not to have given a direction for registration of plot on payment of balance sale consideration, also equally does not merit consideration, inasmuch as both Primary and Appellate Forums have got the power to modify the relief in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no infirmity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by both Primary and Appellate Forums warranting interference of this Court in exercise of Certiorari jurisdiction. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) ___________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J.) 13th July, 2010 Js.