ORDER
J.K. Mehra, Member
1. In this appeal the order of Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has been challenged. At the time of hearing Counsel had pressed only the ground of limitation and maintainability of the complaint.
2. In the case the Respondents had entered into an agreement (annx P1) with the Petitioner on 17th May , 1995 whereby the Petitioner agreed to construct and convey apartment No. 8-C on the 8th floor of the building to be constructed together with undevided interest in the land. The total consideration being Rs. 8,87,000/- which the Respondents had agreed to pay. The Petitioner was to complete the construction within 18 months form the date of the agreement. The total payment was to made two moths before the completion of work in August, 1996. Around that time the Petitioner made a further demand of enhanced amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, taking the total cost to Rs. 9,87,000/- as on 4th of November, 1996. However the progress in the construction remained tardy and virtually there was no progress worth any significance. Even though a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid on 17th November, 1996 as per the evidence construction was not completed even in August 1997. Though the construction had come up the front court-yard remained to be completed, lifts were yet to be installed in full, and car parking etc. were not yet provided. Construction was also of sub-standard quality and no steps were taken for drawing electric connections. It is under these circumstances that the Respondents wanted the Petitioner to return their money with 20% interest. The main defence taken by the Petitioner before the State Commission was that of limitations which has been adequately dealt with by the State Commission and it has rightly held that the cause of action would not be reckoned from the date of execution of agreement, but from the date of the letter dated 20.8.1997 wherein the Petitioner had clearly stated that due to various reasons beyond their control, they would be able to complete the project within 7 to 8 months. This period also expired on 20th April, 1998. This was the expected date of completion according to the Petitioner itself and the building was not delivered till that date on 20th April, 1998, a complaint was filed in June, 1999 which was clearly within two years from the date 20.4.1998, as prescribed in the Section 24(A) of the C.P. Act from the cause of action. For that reason, we think that the State Commission had rightly decided the question of limitation against the Petitioner. The State Commission had also examined the report by a local Commissioner who visited the building on 20th December, 2000 and has stated that the structure has been completed, flooring has been done with ceramic tiles. He has observed that the work inside the flat is almost complete except that electric connection, water supply and drainage connection. Although the electrical wiring were almost completed, no distribution box or circuit breaker were installed.
3. In view of this, deficiency of service is more than enough. The State Commission has also gone into the question of whether the Petitioner had contributed to the slow progress of construction. However, the State Commission has dealt with the entire evidence at considerable length in reaching to the conclusion of the issue of maintainability of complaint. Having reached this conclusion and keeping in view the law laid down in various ruling referred to in the impugned order the State Commission has not committed any error of law or fact in awarding the return of the amount of Rs. 9,37,000/- along with interest@ 18% from the dates on which each amount was deposited with the Complainant. We find no merit in the appeal, hence dismiss it and the costs are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.