BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 3^rd DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986(herein under referred as an Act) to direct the OPs to pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and other reliefs to be ordered by this Forum.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant having interest in Vasthu Shastra, approached the OPs by making payment of Rs.20,000/- for Vastu Charges.  Even though, representative of the OPs gave instructions.  But, the instructions of the OPs did not materialized.  Even though, complainant tried to contact the OPs through customer care, but OPs failed to respond.

3. The OPs gave vide publicity in TV channels.  But, they failed to provide proper service.  The act of the OPs amounts to deficiency of service.  Therefore, he called upon the OPs on 27.06.2019 to refund of amount and pay compensation.  But, OPs failed to comply the request.  Hence, this complaint. 

4. After receipt of notice, the OPs appear and file version.  They admit payment of Rs.20,000/-.  In fact, representative of Ops visited the house of the complainant and gave instructions as per checklist dated 18.09.2015 (correct date of checklist is 18.01.2005).  The complainant himself failed to follow the instructions of the checklist.  The complaint is barred by time and filed after five years.  The complainant is not entitled to any monitory reliefs.  The complaint is also barred by limitation in view of Section 24(A) of C.P.Act.  They request to dismiss the complaint.

5. The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and relies on documents.  The affidavit evidence of representative of OPs has been filed and two documents have been marked.  Heard the arguments.  No oral arguments is advanced on behalf of both the parties.  We perused the records.

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
4. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative.

      Point Nos.2 and 3: Do not survive for consideration

      Point No.4: As per final orders

REASONS

8. Point No.1:  The payment of Rs.20,000/- by the complainant to OP No.1 is not in dispute.  The complainant availed the service of Vastu from OP No.1 by paying Rs.20,000/-.  According to the complainant, the OPs and their representative mis-guided and he has suffered mental tension due to inaction of the OPs. Whereas, the OPs contend and representative of OPs stated that the complainant failed to follow the instructions and also failed to follow the instructions mentioned in the checklist dated 18.01.2015.  The documents produced by the complainant are not in dispute.  This complaint is preceeded by exchange of notices. The complainant by issuing legal notice dated 27.06.2019 called upon the OP No.1 and refund his amount of Rs.20,000/- and payment of Rs.5,00,000/- including for mental harassment and vasthu charges.  In response to the notice, the OP No.1 issued reply as per Ex.A.5.  The Ex.A.1 is the speed post cover addressed to the complainant, Ex.A.2 is the legal notice by complainant to OP No.1, Ex.A.3 is postal receipt and Ex.A.4 is postal acknowledgement of OP Nos.1 and 2.  Ex.A.6 is the book published by OP No.1 titled as Sarala Vaastu.  Ex.A.7 is the postal acknowledgement of OP No.1.  The representative of OP No.1 by filing a memo mentioned receipt of payment of Rs.5,000/- is not correct.  But actual payment is Rs.20,000/-.  Ex.B.1 indicates that the complainant has submitted a registration form on 09.07.2014.  It further indicates that the location and dimension of the house of the complainant.  Ex.B.2 indicates that the representative of OPs visited the residence of complainant on 18.01.2015 and served the checklist/revisit form to the complainant.  Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 bear the signature of the complainant.  The check-list clearly indicates that the gas direction and partition between gas sink and mirror is not followed.  The complainant was aware of such checklist on 18.01.2015.  But, he got issued legal notice on 27.06.2019 after lapse of four years.  The question arises, whether issuance of legal notice dated 27.06.2019 saves the limitation.  It is settled proposition of law that mere issuance of legal notice does not save the limitation.  This reasoning of us is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the following two decisions:-

I (2015) CPJ 105 (NC) in the matter between Pappu Mangaratanam Vs. Sai Sha Finance and Chits and another – categorically ruled that Section 24A, 21(b) – Limitation – condonation of delay, service of legal notice not extend period of limitation – cause of action arose on 01.04.2001 when complainant deposited sum of Rs.3,45,000/- as fixed deposit for one year – plea of complainant that cause of action will arise from date of service of legal notice dated 20.05.2004, not accepted – complaint barred by limitation.

9. The complainant having came to know the points, pointed out in the checklist dated 18.01.2015 neither followed the instructions nor filed a complaint within two years from 18.01.2015.  Therefore, complaint is barred by limitation.  The complainant has not offered any cause much less sufficient cause for delay in filing the complaint.  On this point alone, complaint requires to be dismissed.  
10. Point Nos.2 and 3:- It is settled proposition of law that when complaint requires to be dismissed on point of limitation, we have no jurisdiction to decide the case on merits.  Therefore, these two points do not survive for our consideration.
11. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion made in point No.1, the complaint requires to be dismissed as barred by limitation.  We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. No order has to cost.
3. Furnish the copy of this order and return the documents to both the parties with extra pleadings.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 3^rd March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OPs which are as follows:-