DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB: PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM): MEMBER
Monday the 30th day of May 2022
C.C.284/2014
Complainant
Aniljith.T
DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd
3/13, Jayanthi Building, Palayam
Kozhikode – 673 001.
(By Adv. Sri. Binoy. M.B)
Opposite Parties
- Airtel Broadband Division
J.L. Net Solutions
Near English Church
West Nadakkavu, Kannur Road
Kozhikode 673 011.
- Manager
Airtel Mobile Plaza
Mullath Building, Opp. TVS
Mavoor Road, Kozhikode – 673 004.
- Bharathi Airtel
Bharathi Tower, S.A Road
(OP 1,2 and 3 By Adv. Sri. S.K. Krishna Kumar)
-
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 25/07/2012 the complainant applied for broad band internet connection of Airtel Company. One Vinod and another came to the office of the complainant and collected Rs.2,050/- from him stating that the connection would be given within 3 days. Out of the amount collected, Rs.500/- was for the modem and Rs.1,550/- for the land phone. They did not issue any receipt. As the complainant did not receive the connection even after 4 days, he contacted the office of Airtel at Kozhikode. They issued receipt for Rs.500/- and stated that connection would be given within 2 days. But nothing was done thereafter. When the Bangalore office was contacted over the customer care number, it was informed that the account was not opened in his name and advised him to contact the branch at Kozhikode. When he contacted Kozhikode branch, he was asked to contact one Sony Chacko over telephone. When he contacted Sony Chacko, he was informed that a cheque for Rs.2,050/- had been sent to his address. But the said cheque was not received by him. Again he contacted the opposite parties. Then he was informed to send the scanned copy of the application to the e-mail of Sony Chacko. Even though that was done, nothing was heard from the opposite parties thereafter. Recently he approached the Airtel, Mavoor Road office for a new connection. But they were not ready to consider the bill for Rs.500/- already issued to him stating that the said account had been closed. Hence the complaint for realising compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for not giving connection and for not returning Rs.2,050/-including compensation for mental agony and hardship.
3. The opposite parties filed version denying and disputing all the averments and claims in the complaint. According to the opposite parties, the complainant approached them in 2011 for availing broad band connection. The complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation mentioning a wrong date of cause of action. It is denied that one Vinod and another person had collected Rs.2,050/- from the complainant. Only a sum of Rs.500/- was collected from the complainant by the sales team of the opposite parties, for which, a receipt has been issued. The complainant has falsely claimed that a sum of Rs.2,050/- was collected from him. The opposite parties have promptly informed the complainant that connection could not be given due to certain technical difficulties and had issued a DD for the sum collected and sent to the complainant twice at the address given by him, but was returned undelivered both times. The attempt of the complainant is to tarnish the reputation of the company. None of the reliefs sought for is allowable. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
(2) Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency
in service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(3) Reliefs and costs.
5. Evidence in this case was recorded by our learned predecessors-in-office, which consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant and RW 1 and Ext B1 on the side of the opposite parties.
6. PW 1 is none other than the complainant. He has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. Ext A1 is the customer enrolment form and Ext A2 is the receipt for Rs.500/-. RW 1 is the Zonal Head, Customer Service Department, Bharathi Airtel Limited. RW 1 has filed proof affidavit ant deposed supporting the contentions in the version. Ext B1 is the copy of the report generated from the ICRM Portal.
7. We heard both sides.
8. Point No.1: The opposite parties have contended that the complaint is time barred. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides that 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. The complainant has approached this Commission stating that he approached the opposite parties on 25/07/2012 for availing broad band connection. But this is stoutly denied by the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties, in fact, the complainant approached them in 2011. Ext. A1 is the customer enrolment form and Ext. A2 is the receipt for registration fee of Rs.500/-. Ext. A1 does not bear any date. But Ext. A2 is dated 25/07/2011. Ext A2 is not disputed. The fact that the complainant applied for the broad band connection in the year 2011 is substantiated and proved by Ext.A2 receipt produced by none other than the complainant. Apart from this, Ext B1 is produced by the opposite parties. Ext B1, which is the copy of the report generated from ICRM portal, shows that the refund of the amount collected from the complainant was made by the opposite parties in the year 2011, but according to them, the same was returned undelivered. It appears that the complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands mentioning a wrong date of cause of action to circumvent the limitation period. The document produced by the complainant himself shows that the cause of action has arisen on 27/05/2011. The present complaint has been filed only on 24/05/2014 which is beyond the period of limitation. Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a bar for admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. So the present complaint is barred by limitation.
9. In the judgement dated 20/03/2009 in Civil Appeal No. 2067/2002 (State Bank of India Vs. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries) (II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held at page No. 8 as follows.
“It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression ‘shall not admit a complaint’
occurring in Section 24 (A) is sort of a legislative command to the consumer form to examine own its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within 2 years from the date of approval of cause of action and if beyond the said period, sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take note of Section 24(A) and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party could be entitled to have such order set aside”
10. In this case, sufficient cause has not been shown and delay was not condoned for reasons recorded in writing. If this Commission decides the complaint on merits, it would be an illegality as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision referred to above. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as time barred.
11. Point No.2: Since the complaint is barred by time and liable to be dismissed on that count, this point does not arise for consideration.
12. Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed as time barred. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission on this the 30th day May, 2022
Date of Filing: 24/05/2014
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Customer enrolment form
Ext. A2 – Receipt
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 – Copy of the report generated from ICRM portal
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW 1 – Aniljith T - (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW 1 – Suresh Kumar
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
