DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.16/02.02.2009 Decided on : 05.05.2009 Sh.Surinder Singh S/o Sh. Harinder Singh, resident of Village Khara, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.S.D.O. (T), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Mansa. 2.Accounts Officer (TRA), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Parties. Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This order shall dispose of applications dated 17.3.2008 and 20.4.2009 filed by the opposite parties for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation. As per the averments made, the cause of action, has accrued to the complainant, to file the complaint on, 20.9.2004 when he received an amount of Rs.448/-, from the opposite parties, on account of refund of excess amount deposited by him, but he has filed the complaint in this Forum on 2.2.2009, and have not explained delay in filing thereof. It is urged that as per provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Contd........2 : 2 : Protection Act, 1986, complaint is barred by limitation and is liable tobe dismissed. 2. On being put to notice, complainant filed reply submitting that opposite parties have refused to refund the amount demanded by him time and again and have finally rejected his claim vide their letter dated 29.12.2008 written in response to his application received by the complainant on 16.1.2009, as such, complaint is within limitation and no ground is made out for dismissal thereof. At the end a prayer has been made for dismissal of the applications filed by the opposite parties, with costs. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully, with their kind assistance. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have reiterated the stand taken in the applications and reply filed by them in the course of arguments, in their entirety. 5. The complainant has filed the instant complaint for giving direction to the opposite parties, to pay him a sum of Rs.175/-, which as per his version, he had spent in the recovery of Rs.448/-, from the opposite parties vide their Cheque No.148607 dated 20.9.2004, in exchange of correspondence, surcharge, damages and other expenses and for wastage of his valuable time for about 5 years and 6 months. He has also taken a plea that opposite parties have failed to take into consideration the decision of this Forum dated 21.10.2008 given in Complaint No.54 filed on 30.4.2008 directing them to pay a sum of Rs.175/- to Sh.Parmeshwar Singh S/o Sh.Baldev Singh, resident of village Khara, Tehsil and District Mansa. As admitted by the complainant in the complaint itself, he has received a sum of Rs.448/-, from the opposite parties vide cheque dated 20.9.2004, but has filed the instant complaint on 2.2.2009 in this Forum, for recovery of Rs.175/-, on account of compensation for consumption of time for a period of 5 years in getting the refund of said amount paid in excess by him Contd........3 : 3 : for exchange of correspondence, surcharge, damages and other expenses. 6. Section 24 A introduced by the legislature with effect from 18.6.1993, provides that a District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which cause has arisen. It is further provided that complaint may be entertained after the period prescribed in Sub-section(1), if the complainant satisfies the District Fora that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint during such period and in case his plea is accepted then, Consumer Fora shall record reasons for condonation of delay. 7. The cause of action to the complainant to file the instant complaint, as per his own version, has accrued on 20.9.2004, when he received refund of Rs.448/-, paid in excess by him on account of calls made by him on his telephone No.263012. He has placed reliance upon applications dated 29.9.2004 and 15.12.2008, but copies of those applications are not attached by him with the complaint. In 2003(1) CLT (NC) 337 Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd versus New India Assurance Company Limited, plea of the complainant was that delay in filing the complaint was due to protracted correspondence between the parties. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that correspondence could have any meaning only if at any stage liability has been acknowledged by the opposite party. Since no such document was produced by the complainant due to negligence and inefficiency on the part of the opposite party, his complaint was held to be barred by limitation. In 2005(IV) CPJ 10 Suman Kabra versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and ors. cause of action arose to the complainant to file the complaint between 1996 to 1998 when his telephone was disconnected by the opposite party and the complaint filed in the year 2002 was barred by limitation by the Hon'ble State Commission with the verdict that writing of letters and visiting functionaries of the opposite parties, does not extend period of limitation and order passed by the Consumer Forum was Contd........4 : 4 : upheld. It is not the case of the complainant that opposite parties, have acknowledged the liability to pay him Rs.175/- after making payment of Rs.448/- on account of excess amount. As per his version, first application has been filed on 29.9.2004 , but it has not been placed on record. For the purpose of condonation of delay, delay of each day has to be explained by the person aggrieved. The complainant has also not filed application for condonation of delay for filing the complaint and application dated 15.12.2008 and there is nothing on record suggesting the opposite parties acknowledged their liability between date of payment of said application. Even his counsel, in the course of arguments, has not taken any such plea to justify the considerable delay in filing of the complaint and this Forum has not made any observation regarding bar of limitation while admitting the complaint. In the absence of any justification, we find no ground for condonation of delay in filing of the complaint. Since the complaint is apparently barred by limitation and no ground is made out for condonation of delay, which is not explained by the complainant. The complainant has placed reliance upon order dated 21.10.2008 passed in complaint No.54 of 30.4.2008 titled as 'Parmeshwar Singh Vs SDO(T) & others'. In that case payment has been made to the complainant on 8.11.2006 and he filed the complaint for recovery of Rs.175/- on 30.4.2008 i.e. within a period of 2 years from the date of payment. Therefore, the complainant cannot take advantage of the said order passed in complaint to which he is not party. As such, in our opinion, no purpose would be served by proceeding further with the complaint filed by the complainant, except wasting valuable time of the Forum, the parties and their counsel. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the application filed by the opposite parties and dismiss the complaint No.16 filed on 02.02.2009 titled as Surinder Singh versus SDO(T) and others. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Contd........5 : 5 : 9. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. 10 File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 05.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
