Rupinder Singh Mangat Vs. Goyal Hundai and Others.

Present: Sh. KK Arora, Adv Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv Counsel for OP No.1.

Sh. MS Sachdeva, Adv Counsel for OP No.2.

Sh. Raman Sharma, Adv Counsel for OP No.3.

Through this order we are going to dispose of an application filed by applicant Rupinder Singh, for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint.

Brief facts of the application are that the applicant has filed the consumer complaint No.115 of 2012 before the Learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh which was heard on 13.08.2014 and the order was reserved. The applicant was away to foreign country and when he came to India on 16.07.2015, he enquired about his case and he came to know on the internet that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab has finally disposed of the complaint filed by him. The copy of the order which was required to the parties, was not received by the applicant as he was not in India at that time.

That thereafter the complainant approached his counsel for filing of complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jalandhar, in terms of the order dated 21.08.2014 and arranged for the requisite documents required for the filing of the above captioned complaint. The operative part of the judgment dated 21.08.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab and Chandigarh reads as under:-

“Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission. Accordingly, it is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction with the liberty of right to the complainant to file that complaint on same subject matter before the District Forum.”

That thereafter, the present complaint is being filed before this Forum as it has been remanded back by the Hon'ble State Commission. However, since the matter relates that to the year 2010-11, despite the order a delay has been accrued in filing of the present complaint since the matter was pending before the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh and therefore, it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice equity and fairplay to condone the above stated delay in filing the present complaint as the delay as accrued due to no fault of the present complainant and the delay so occurred is neither intentional nor deliberate and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore the delay may be condoned and in support of his version he further referred the citation i.e. 2014(3) law herald Supreme Court 2585 Muneesh Devi Versus UP Power (Corporation Limited, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353, 2007(2) S.C.T. 224 : 2007(1) R.A.J. 898 : 2007(2) PLR 188, 1976(1) SCC 289, 2009(3) AICJ 623 : 2008(1) PLR 706 and further submitted that there is merit in the case of the present complainant and that itself connotes sufficient cause for condoning the delay, furthermore the complainant had chosen the wrong forum as per the legal advise available to him and therefore the said delay has occurred for no fault of the complainant and as such the application may be accepted and the delay in filing the complaint may kindly be condoned.

Notice of the application was given to the respondents and accordingly respondent No.1 filed a reply and contested the said application by taking preliminary objections that the application for condonation of delay is baseless, frivolous and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts and is devoid of any merits and further alleged that the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed on the sold ground that there is no explanation for delay in filing the present complaint and further submitted that the complainant has to explain the delay which admittedly has not been done by the complainant and the present application is not only vague but also lacks material particulars and further submitted that the complainant is saying that he came to know about order from internet when he returned to India. It is submitted that the complainant always know about the order of the Hon'ble State Commission as he has access to internet outside India also. On merits all the allegations made in the application are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the application of the applicant may be dismissed.

Respondent No.2 filed a separate reply, wherein controverted the entire facts as detailed in the application and lastly submitted that the instant application of the applicant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Similarly, respondent No.3 filed a separate reply, wherein took preliminary objections that the present application is not maintainable against the answering respondent No.3, as such the same is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the applicant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs. The answering respondent has no liability as the complaint of the complainant is that the accident took place due to technical defects in the breaking system of the car and even in the complaint filed by the complainant before the Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh, the relief claimed is only against the respondents No.1 and 2 by making prayer seeking direction to the respondent to refund Rs.13,80,000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.21,50,000/-. As a routine practice, as the intimation of accident was given to the answering respondent No.3, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to assess the loss, but the complainant did not opt to repair the vehicle despite repeated requests and did not respond, as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 31.05.2011 and the complainant was informed accordingly. It is further submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the applicant against the answering respondent No.3, yet just for the purpose of counting limitation period, it may be taken that the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 31.05.2011, when the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 31.05.2011 and the period of limitation starts from the date of repudiation. The plea of the applicant that he was away to foreign country is no ground for condonation of delay. Otherwise also the present application against the answering respondent No.3 cannot be entertained as no relief was claimed in the earlier complaint filed by the complainant before the State Commission, as such the benefit of time lapsed during the proceedings in the complaint before the Hon'ble State Commission cannot be availed against the answering respondent No.3. On merits, all the averments made in the application are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the application of the applicant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

We have heard the Learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the file very minutely.

After hearing the arguments and from the scrutiny of the pleading of the application for condonation of delay, we find that some material particulars are very much missing in the said application. As per settled principle of law, the applicant while filing an application for condonation of delay, he has to explain in the application when the cause of action accrued and how much delay is there. But, in this case the applicant intentionally, willfully and knowingly concealed this factum in the application. He has not referred the date on which cause of action accrued, if so then wherefrom the starting of time of limitation will be counted for. So, from the outset on the face of the application it seems that the application is vexatious, baseless and vague which does not disclose the material aspects. On the other hand, if we assume from the complaint which has already been filed by the applicant alongwith this application and in the complaint the applicant has claimed the relief against respondents No.1 and 2 who is manufacturer as well as dealer of the car regarding full price of the car i.e. 13,80,000/-, it means nothing is claimed from insurance company. So, from the pleadings of the complaint, it reveals that applicant/complainant alleged in para No.3 that within 2-3 days of delivery of car complains that the engine of the car become hot very shortly, and after this he discovered that there is no coolant in the car and he immediately made this complaint to the company and also alleged that there is a defect in the mirror of the car, were of different dates and ultimately car met with an accident on 29.11.2010 due to which the car was totally damaged and due to inherent defect in the car, the complainant has claimed the full price of the Car from the dealer and manufacturer of the Company. Therefore the cause of action accrued to the claimant within 2-3 days of the delivery of the car on 22.08.2009 when he purchased the car and if counted the period of the limitation from 22.08.2009 then the complainant has to file the complaint as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, within two years from the date of accruing cause of action. But the instant complaint filed by the complainant on 28.08.2015 i.e. after lapse of 6 years and if we exclude the period which spent by the complainant in a wrong Court “having no jurisdiction” i.e. State Commission, even then there is a delay of more than two years which is not explained by the applicant. As per settled law the delay can be condoned if the same is satisfactorily explained by the applicant. But, in this case the applicant miserably failed to explain the delay day by day and accordingly we find that the judgments referred by the applicant in his application are not applicable in the present case and accordingly this application of the applicant is dismissed being devoid of merits and accordingly the complaint of the complainant being time barred is also dismissed.

Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

29.03.2017 Member President