DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/330.

Date of Institution   : 03.05.2018/29.11.2021.

Date of Decision    : 22.06.2022.

1.Mr. Amarjit Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh;

2.Mrs. Parkash Kaur wife of Sh. Amarjit Singh;

3.Mrs. Rupinder Kaur wife of Sh. Baljinder Singh all residents of Ward No. 9, Jandial Guru, District Amritsar.     

                …Complainants Versus

Dauphin Touch Network Pvt. Ltd. New Aman Nagar, Church Road, Tower Wali Building, Jalandhar Byepass Chowk, Ludhiana through its Prop./Partner/Managing Director/Principle Officer.  

                    …Opposite Party

 

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Inderjit Lakhra Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Munish Kohli Adv counsel for opposite party. 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainants have filed the present complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against the Amritsar Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred as opposite party)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainants have filed the joint complaint as having the same cause of action against the opposite party. It is alleged that the complainants were approached by the opposite party to purchase their products which are of the best quality and standards and are not available in the retail market and the complainants deposited the amount of Rs. 4,500/- each with the opposite party. It is alleged that till today the opposite party has not supplied the ordered material to the complainant and even not refunded the deposited amount to the complainants. As such, the above said acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To refund the amount of Rs. 4,500/- each alongwith interest @ 12%  from the date of payment till realization. 

ii) To pay Rs. 50,000/-  as compensation and to pay the litigation expenses.   

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable and Hon’ble Forum (now Commission) has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Further, the complaint is time barred by limitation as the complainants had purchased the family package of the opposite party in the year 2012. Further, there is no consumer dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that the complainant No. 1 achieved first level on 24.7.2012 and have also received the insurance policy got done by the opposite party from the National Insurance Company Limited, but despite the same the complainants have deliberately and malafidely made false averments in the present complaint. 

4. On merits, it is denied that the complainants were approached by the opposite party to purchase their products. It is denied that the complainants have deposited the amount of Rs. 4,500/- each. It is submitted that as the complainants have availed the benefits provided by the opposite party, so they are not entitled for any refund. It is further submitted that the allegation of the complainants of non supplying of ordered material is apparently false as the complainant namely Amarjit Singh has sold the family package to others and had achieved 1st level on 24.7.2012 and a cheque of Rs. 1,000/- was also issued in favour of the said complainant. Moreover, the said family package does not contain any provision for supplying the ordered material as it contained the products/components and facilities/benefits as mentioned in the brochure. The all other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of present complaint. 

5. In support of their case the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Rupinder Kaur Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.  

6. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainants the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Parveen Jain Ex.O.P1/A alongwith documents Ex.O.P1 to Ex.O.P8 and closed the evidence.    

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties.  

8. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that the present complaint is time barred by limitation as the complainants had purchased the family package of the opposite party in the year 2012 as reflected from the “welcome letters” Ex.OP6 to Ex.O.P8 issued to the complainants. Ld. Counsel for opposite party also argued that the cause of action starts from July 23, 2012 and the limitation for institution of complaint U/s 24 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen and the complainants have filed the present complaint beyond the prescribed period of 2 years i.e. in the year 2018 after a gap of 6 years. From the perusal of the file it is established that the present complaint has been filed by the complainants in the year 2018 but the complainants have deposited the amount of Rs. 4,500/- with the opposite party on 23.7.2012 which is proved from the welcome letters Ex.C-3, Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-7 placed on record by the complainants and thereafter no correspondence have been made by the complainants with the opposite parties. Even, the complainants have failed to place on record any letters/representations sent to the opposite party for the refund of money. So, it is proved that there was no continuous cause of action. The cause of action arose on 23.7.2012 and the complaint was filed on 3.5.2018 after a gap of 6 years. Further, from the welcome letters Ex.C-3, Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-7 it is proved that the complainants have paid the amount of Rs. 4,500/- to the opposite party at Ludhiana Branch. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that this Forum/Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Ld. Counsel for opposite party also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer Complaint No. 89 of 2014 decided on 1.5.2014 in case titled Niloba Ghanshyam Naik & Anr. Vs Lodha Pranik Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others in which the Hon'ble National Commission held that the complaint should be filed within two years from the cause of action and it is well settled that the correspondence, representations and legal notice do not extend the time of limitation. 

9. In view of the above discussion, it is established that the present complaint is time barred and this Forum/Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, so the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       22nd Day of June, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member