ORDER

19.09.2023

SH. RAJESH, MEMBER

1. Vide this order we will be deciding the admissibility of present complaint.
2. Present complainant has been filed by complainant seeking direction to OPs to pay replace the vehicle Maruti Suzuki Dzire Tour (S) CNG-19 with fresh New Vehicle of New Model with new and latest international norms immediately or to refund the cost of the vehicle Maruti Suzuki Dzire Tour (S) CNG-19 i.e. amounting to Rs. 6,17,680/- with interest, cost and compensation.
3. It is stated that on or about 07.01.2020 the complainant had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Dzire Tour (S) CNG-19 car for a sum of Rs. 6,17,680/- from OP1 which was financed by OP3 for a sum of Rs. 5,02,698/- balance amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- was paid as down payment for the purchase of the subject vehicle. The loan was repayable in total 46 EMIs of one  EMI of Rs. 14,700/- and rest of the other 45 EMIs of Rs. 15,095/- each.
4. It is stated by the complainant that after the purchase of the vehicle when the complainant had approached for the registration certificate to the concerned Registration Transport Authority Delhi for the number plate of the said commercial vehicle car but the same had not been received by said authority saying that car which complainant had purchased was outdated i.e. the said car could not be registered due to ban on technical legal ground.
5. It is stated by the complainant that he approached the OP 1 but the OP1 did not pay any heed towards the request of complainant and kept avoiding the matter on one or the other pretext.
6. It is stated by the complainant that that due to imposition of nation vide lockdown due to Corona pandemic on 25.03.2020 the OP1 took the excuse of the said lockdown for not providing the RC and number plate to the complainant. Despite of lifting up of lockdown the OP1 kept on lingering on the matter by befooling the complainant.  
7. It is alleged by the complainant that due to non issuance of the said RC and number plate to the complainant he couldn’t run the said commercial car and therefore could not earn his livelihood despite having purchased his own car.
8. It is stated by the complainant that the vehicle had been repossessed and taken into the custody by the officials of the OP on 04.02.2021.
9. It is stated by the complainant that on 02.07.2022 the wife of the complainant had expired.
10. It is alleged by the complainant in his complaint that the OPs in collusion with one another had sold the said vehicle in question dishonestly, illegally, fraudulently, malafidely and deliberately to complainant knowing that the said vehicle couldn’t be registered and no number plate could be provided to complainant.
11. It is alleged by the complainant that OP3 knowingly and intentionally in collusion with OP1 and OP2 had financed the said vehicle deliberately that one day the said vehicle would be taken into the custody one or the other way because of non registration of the said vehicle as well as number plate.
12. It is alleged by the complainant in his complaint that from the very beginning of the date of purchasing of the vehicle it remained in the possession of complainant without plying the same on the road whereas the said vehicle had been purchased for the commercial purpose for the livelihood of the complainant and his family members regarding day to day expenses of necessities of life.
13. Thus the grievance of the complainant is that OP No.1 sold to complainant a car which was not registrable with transport department Delhi and which couldn’t be plied on road without registration and same was repossessed by the OP 3 arbitrarily and illegally.
14. Let us discuss the applicable provision of law in the present case Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Necessity for registration.- No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with  this  Chapter  and  the  certificate  of  registration  of  the  vehicle  has  not  been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided  that  nothing  in  this  section  shall  apply  to  a  motor  vehicle  in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions  as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

15. From the bare perusal of the facts and allegations made in the complaint by the complainant no reason has been pleaded by the complainant to show what forced him to take the delivery of an unregistered vehicle from OP1 against the law. It appears that complainant himself is negligent for bringing and driving the unregistered vehicle on the road. It is also not pleaded by the complainant and therefore is not clear on what basis the complainant approached the RTO for registration of the subject vehicle when it was the duty of the dealer to get the new vehicle sold to its customers. It is further also not clear what prevented the complainant to approach this Commission within statutory period of sale of the allegedly unregistered vehicle on 07.01.2020.  It appears that complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.
16. Apparently the present complaint has been filed with a delay of 606 (Six Hundred Six) days whereas in the application for the condonation of delay preferred by the complainant delay has been mentioned as 103 days only. The reason given in the application for condonation of delay is pendency of proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and untimely death of the wife of the complainant on 02.07.2022. 
17. Let us peruse the relevant provisions of C.P. Act, 2019 dealing  with the aspect of limitation and same is reproduced as under:-

Section 69 Limitation period :—

(1) 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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

18. Let us peruse the principles of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble NCDRC. In State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP)=JT 2009 (4) SC 191, it was held as under: 

It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is premptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two 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 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on 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 two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the 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 notice of Section 24A 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 would be entitled to have such order set aside.

19. In Ramratan M. Shriniwas vs Jayant H. Thakkar decided on 2^nd August, 2011 Revision Petition NO. 640 of 2006 Hon’ble NCDRC held as follows:- 

We agree with the view taken by the fora below. It is well established by catena of judicial pronouncements that once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between the parties. The provision regarding limitation period contained in section 24A being of mandatory nature, the fora below was duty bound to determine whether the complaint is within the limitation period and since on consideration of the material placed before them, they found that the complaint was barred by limitation and sufficient cause had not been made out to condone the delay in question, no fault could be found with the impugned orders.

20. Now applying the above discussed provisions of law and Principles laid down in the present case. As per facts admitted by the complainant that. The present complaint is admittedly filed on 05.09.2023. However present complaint should have been filed on or before 07.01.2022 i.e. within a period of two years from the date when cause of action finally arose which is 07.01.2020 i.e. date of sale of vehicle to complainant without registration in the present case as stated above. Though after denial of registration by RTO the complainant made several representations to OP however same will be of no help to complainant since “once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between the parties” ( Supra Ramaratan).
21. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides that neither the District Commission nor the State Commission nor the National Commission shall admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The term "cause of action" is of wide import and has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. It refers to all circumstances or bundle of facts which if proved or admitted entitles the plaintiff (complainant) to the relief prayed for.
22. It is pertinent to mention here that as per 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the provisions of this act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other for the time being in force. The complainant could approach this Commission despite pendency of arbitral proceedings therefore this reason given by the complainant is not apparently justified. Second reason given as death of the wife of complainant on 02.07.2022 due to which complainant became upset and mentally disturbed is also not justified in view fact that there has already been a considerable delay in filing of the present complaint even before and after the unfortunate death of the wife of the complainant and therefore complainant cannot set the clock back and claim condonation of delay of 606 days in filing of the present consumer complaint.  
23. In view of aforesaid discussions, observations and provisions of law this Commission is of the considerable view that present complaint is not maintainable and therefore same is dismissed.
    Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission  on 19.09.2023.

(SANJAY KUMAR )                  (NIPUR CHANDNA)                (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                                        MEMBER                       MEMBER