DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No. CC/010/261 of   9.4.2010 

                                                Decided on:   10.9.2010

Darshan Singh son of Sh.Sukhdev Singh resident of Village Lagroi, Tehsil & District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                       Versus

1.                 Gupta Sales Corporation, Main Road, Samana, District Patiala through its Sole Proprietor Kashmiri Lal.

2.                 Kashmiri Lal Gupta, Sole Prop. Gupta Sales Corporation, Main Road, Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.                                   

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.Inderjit Singh, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh. Sh.B.S.Budhail,   Advocate   

For opposite parties:     Sh.Vijay Goyal,   Advocate

                                         ORDER

SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                                      Complainant Darshan Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against  the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.

2.                                   As per averments made in the complaint the case

of   the complainant is like this:-

                                      That the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala launched a scheme known as Own Your Transformer under which the consumer is to apply to the P.S.E.B. for the tubewell connection for irrigation purposes and to incur the entire expenses of the material required for the installation of the tubewell i.e. transformer, poles, wires and all other material required for tubewell connection. That in order to avail the aforesaid scheme of the P.S.E.B., the complainant approached to the opposite parties being  the approved contractors of P.S.E.B. for the supply of the material for tubewell installation and allied material. That P.S.E.B. also gave notice to the general public through publication in the news papers regarding the rates of goods for the installation of the tubewell. That the opposite parties undertook to supply the goods for the installation of tubewell connection under the scheme of the P.S.E.B. and received an amount of Rs.10000/- as advance payment/amount for the supply of goods. That as per news given by the P.S.E.B. in the news papers, the P.S.E.B. quoted the entire expenses to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/-. As per news given by the P.S.E.B., the fixed price of goods for tubewell connection is as under:-

i)                   Rs.36500/- for 10 KVA Transformer

ii)                Rs.49500/- for 16 KVA transformer

iii)              Rs.29500/- for 6.3 KAV transformer

iv)              Rs.1650/- for PCC pole( 8 meter length)

v)                Rs.1950/- for PCC pole( 9 meter length)

vi)              Rs.18/- per meter of A.C.S.R. conductor(10mm)

vii)           Rs.3900/- for 11 KV.75 ampere G.O.Switch

viii)         Rs.210/- for 11 K.C.Disc. Insulator

ix)              Rs.25/- for 11 K.V. Pin Insulator

x)                Rs.80/- for 11 K.V.G.I.Pin

xi)              Rs.60/- per Kilo of G.S.S.Wire/Stay wire

That as the complainant was in urgent need of tubewell connection so he agreed to purchase goods from the opposite parties and the opposite parties charged Rs.50000/-for the transformer instead of fixed price of Rs.36500/- and issued the receipt for Rs.38000/-.Similarly the opposite parties charged Rs.35/- for Pin Insulator instead of fixed price of Rs.25/- and received Rs.200/- from the complainant. The fixed price of Disc Insulator is Rs.210/- but the opposite parties claimed Rs.280/- and received Rs.1000/- and similarly have received Rs.5200/- instead of fixed price of Rs.3000/- for G.O.Switch and like wise in other items the complainant has been over charged and thus caused a net loss of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. That the complainant has been robbed of for overcharging which amounts to criminal offence also. That the complainant has visited the opposite parties several times for the explanation as mentioned above and has been mentally humiliated and harassed for no fault and caused huge financial loss to the complainant by over charging and as such the complainant is entitled to receive excess amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which the opposite parties have received by overcharging the goods. That the complainant came to know later on through news papers that fraud in the sum of several crores has been committed by the suppliers of the goods of OYT scheme in connivance with the Board authorities and since then the complainant is under mental tension and agony and as such the complainant is entitled to special damages to the tune of Rs.50000/- from the opposite parties.

3.                                   Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that M/s Gupta Sales Corporation is not the contractor of P.S.E.B. for the supply of material.M/s Gupta Sales Corporation is a private firm and sells the electric goods and material related to the transformers etc. and has nothing to do with the P.S.E.B. Sh. Kashmiri Lal Gupta is the labour contractor only for the installation of transformers and charges only for labour work. The P.S.E.B . can not guide or instruct the opposite parties and other shopkeepers regarding the rate of products. P.S.E.B. can not force the private firms including opposite parties to sell the goods below the cost price and without taking profit. Moreover, the rates mentioned by the P.S.E.B. in the newspaper are only indicative and are approximate factory rates. The P.S.E.B. again issued the fresh list of approximate rates of material relating to installation of transformers and in this fresh list, rate for 10 K.V. transformer was mentioned as Rs.42811/-. Opposite parties i.e. M/s Gupta Sales Corporation or Kashmiri Lal Gupta never received Rs.10000/- or any other amount from the complainant as advance for the supply of goods. As per complainant, the P.S.E.B. quoted the entire expenses to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- but the complainant purchased the material worth Rs.50000/- only. All the rates mentioned by the P.S.E.B. are approximate rates and it is also mentioned by the P.S.E.B. that these mentioned rates can be increased due to Vat/Taxes. The opposite parties never charged Rs.50000/- for the transformer. The said transformer was sold for Rs.38000/- and a bill was issued for the same. The cost price of the 10 KVA transformer to opposite parties is Rs.33,653.85 + 1347 as Vat totaling Rs.35000/-.And Rs.1500/-(as fixed by the P.S.E.B.) paid to the labour contractor(Sh.Kashmiri Lal Gupta) by the Gupta Sales Corporation for the installation of transformer. Moreover,2.5% of the cost price of transformer i.e. about Rs.750/- was deposited by the opposite parties to the P.S.E.B. as Govt. fees, as per rules. In this way total cost price of 10KVA transformer comes to Rs.37250/- for the opposite parties and they sold the same for Rs.38000/- after taking a marginal and normal profit of Rs.750/- only. The opposite parties never charged Rs.200/- for the Pin Insulator. It is denied that opposite parties charged  Rs.1000/- for Disc Insulator and Rs.5200/- for G.O.Switch. The G.O. switch is sold for Rs.3000/- and bill for the same amount was issued to the complainant. It is wrong that complainant has been overcharged by the opposite parties or a loss of Rs.1,00,000/- or of any other amount was caused to the complainant. Complainant failed to submit the details of alleged loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. There is no overcharging by the opposite parties. The rates of goods/material are less at the shop of opposite parties in compare of other shops in the area and this is the  reason that the complainant approached the shop of opposite parties to purchase the material/goods. It is the complainant who wants to defame and extort the money from opposite parties illegally by injuring the reputation of the opposite parties. The complainant has cooked up a false story. There is no over charging or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties. It is denied that complainant suffered any financial loss or was mentally humiliated or harassed. Complainant is not entitled to receive an amount of Rs.100,000/- as there is no overcharging by the opposite parties. Moreover, even the complainant has not purchased the material worth Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties so no question arises of overcharging of Rs.1,00,000/- by the opposite parties. Complainant has failed to submit the details of overcharging worth Rs.1,00,000/-. There was no fraud by the opposite parties. It is a false allegation. It is denied that the complainant is under mental tension or agony or is entitled to special damages to the tune of Rs.50000/- .In fact, it is the opposite parties who are suffering the harassment and mental tension due to this false and frivolous complaint and opposite parties are entitled to receive Rs.50000/- as cost for mental tension and harassment and cost for forced litigation from the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.

4.                                   The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record.

5.                                   The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.

 6.                                  At the very outset the learned counsel for opposite parties has contended that the complaint is not within the period of limitation. The bill in question is dated 10.3.2008 whereas the present complaint was filed on 9.4.2010 i.e. after more than two years.

7.                                   Whereas the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complaint is maintainable being within the period of limitation.

8.                                   We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.

9.                                   The perusal of the bill,Ex.C11 would show that it is dated 27.3.2008.The bill,Ex.C12 is dated 22.3.2008 and the bill,Ex.C13 is dated 10.3.2008. The present complaint was filed on 9.4.2010 meaning thereby the cause of action has arisen in this case from the date when the complainant had purchased the articles from the opposite parties. Section 24A of the Act provides the period of limitation. As per Section 24A of the Act the complaint should have been filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action had arisen. In this case the cause of action had arisen when the complainant had purchased the articles on 27.3.2008 vide bill,Ex.C11 on 22.3.2008, vide bill,Ex.C12 and on 10.3.2008 vide bill,Ex.C13.So the present complaint is clearly barred by time.

10.                                 In view of our above discussion we hold that the complaint is not maintainable being barred by time. The same merits dismissal and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

                                      File be consigned to the record.

Pronounced.

Dated:10.9.2010.

                                                                             President

                                                                             Member