STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Ujjal Singh resident of #35, Adarsh Nagar, ModelTown, Ambala City.

                                                                .…Appellant

                                Vs.

Gurnam Singh resident of # 1190, Sector 44-B,Chandigarh.

                                                …. Respondent

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued By: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2012 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant) was dismissed in limine, being totally barred by time. 

2.                    The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant engaged the Opposite Party for representing him, in cases before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It was stated that the complainant had applied for the Post of Deputy Forest Ranger in the Forest Department through Advertisement No.5/95 advertised by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred as H.S.S.C) in the year 1995. It was further stated that the selection had been challenged by one Smt. Krishna Devi (Forest Guard). According to the complainant, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had quashed the entire selection through its order dated 31.3.1998. It was further stated that the order was challenged in the Hon’ble Apex Court by S.L.P. No.8365/1998, in which, said Krishna Devi and others had been represented by the Opposite Party. The Hon’ble Apex Court passed an interim order on 16.3.1999 for making fresh selection through proper procedure. It was further stated that the complainant also appeared for fresh selection on 5.3.2000 (written test) and thereafter for an interview on 28.4.2000. The final result of the selection was kept, in a sealed cover, for producing before the Hon’ble Apex Court on the next date for hearing, which was 6.9.2000 in CA No.4948/2000 in the matter of Ravipal & Others Vs. Krishna Devi & others. It was further stated that the complainant was very sure about his selection, on merit, because he had done his test very well. It was further stated that his name was mentioned at Serial No.2 in the said list. However, even though the complainant made every effort to obtain copy of this selection list from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as from the Counsel for the parties (Opposite Party in this complaint) and even by inspection of the record file, but he could not get the list. It was further stated that the complainant then approached the Opposite Party for obtaining a copy of this list on 20.7.2002 and again on 5.8.2002. The complainant paid Rs.500/- to the Opposite Party, for getting this list. It was further stated that even though the Opposite Party, kept calling him on some pretext or the other, yet he never showed the list to him. The complainant, thus, asked the Opposite Party to return Rs.500/- as well as the case file entrusted to him. It was further stated that the complainant was again called on 16.11.2002 by the Opposite Party. This time Rs.4,000/- were handed over by the complainant, to the Opposite Party but the record file as well as the selection list was never shown to him. However, the complainant was told that the Opposite Party would send a legal notice to H.S.S.C. This notice was sent on 25.11.2002 without showing it to the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, in the meanwhile, also told the complainant that there was no need of his presence in the Hon’ble High Court at the time of hearing of the Second Petition i.e. CWP No.7283/2003. This Civil Writ Petition was dismissed on 10.11.2003. As per the complainant, the Opposite Party had been indicted by the Hon’ble High Court, in this matter. The complainant then approached the Opposite Party to collect the files of both his cases as well as to recover the money paid by him to the Opposite Party, but the files were not returned. The complainant also, in the meanwhile, approached the Secretary, Bar Council (Mr.M.C.Mungal) who asked the complainant to submit his complaint in writing. The complainant, thus, sent a complaint by courier to the Bar Council’s Office on 24.11.2003. It was further that once this complaint had been sent to the Bar Council, the Opposite Party started harassing him even more and was always talking to him in a very rude manner. The Opposite Party was also taking unnecessary adjournments in the Bar Council Meetings by stating that he was appearing for the complainant in High Court in RA No.02/2004 in C.W.P No.7283/2003 but actually, he had absented himself from Court proceedings on 23.7.2004 and 29.9.2004. The allegations of the complainant, thus, mainly pointed to the fact that the Opposite Party was involved with H.S.S.C, and he was doing a favour to them by not producing any documentary evidence before the Hon’ble High Court.  He had also not filed any contempt petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the Hon’ble High Court as the Selection Commission had changed the list while making appointments after producing the same, in the Court. It was further stated that the Opposite Party had disclosed this fact before the Bar Council. It was further stated that the Opposite Party then even offered to return the money paid by the complainant, but he was not prepared to supply the documentary evidence (Selection List), for which he (complainant) had approached him on 20.7.2002.  According to the complainant, the Opposite Party was absenting himself from the hearings and not showing the records either to him or to the Court, which eventually resulted in the complainant not winning his case. It was further stated that the order of the Bar Council had gone against the Opposite Party, whereby, he had been asked to supply the selection list to the complainant as well as pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- but the Opposite Party even tampered with these orders. He also ensured that these orders remained in the Bar Council’s Office and were never shown to the complainant. It was further stated that these details were disclosed to the complainant on 29.5.2005 by the Committee Member Sh. Vinod Chadha. It was further stated that the details given above, clearly showed that Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Bar Council had found the Opposite Party guilty of misconduct and cheating due to which the complainant suffered physical harassment and financial loss. The complainant has still not got the job he desired even after the lapse of so much time as well as engaging in litigation. It was further stated that the complainant even approached the CBI’s Anti Corruption Branch in Sector 30-A, Chandigarh, Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee’s Office, National Commission for Minorities Office, Chief Minister of Haryana, PMO’s Office, New Delhi, Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Department of Administration Reforms and Public Grievances, but no action was ever taken, by any of the authorities to redress his grievance. Thereafter, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala on 20.12.2011. However, the case was not admitted due to the fact that cause of action arose at Chandigarh only. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.

4.                    After hearing the complainant in person, and on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint in limine, being palpably barred by time. 

5.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant. 

6.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

7.                    After hearing the Counsel for the appellant and, on going through the order of the District Forum, we are of the considered view that there is no ambiguity in the same (order) as the complaint filed before it was hopelessly barred by time because the cause of action for the first time accrued to the appellant in the year 2000 and all the allegations, levelled by the appellant, against the respondent were pertaining to the year 2000 to 2005. According to Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appellant was supposed to file the complaint within two years from the date, on which the cause of action, arose. Apparently, the complaint was filed on 12.01.2012 i.e. much after the expiry of statutory period of two years. According to Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Fora cannot admit a complaint for hearing, unless, it is filed within two years, from the date on which the cause of action arose.  As per section 24A (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in special cases, where the complainant, has been able to show sufficient cause, for not filing the complaint, within time and an application for condonation of such delay is made, then the  complaint may be entertained. However, in the present case, the complainant did not move any application for condonation delay explaining the reasons as to why the complaint could not be filed within the statutory period of two years. The appellant, however, moved an application, for condonation of delay, in filing the complaint, before this Commission, at the time of filing the appeal, which is not maintainable as the same should have been filed before the District Forum, at the time of filing the complaint itself. The same is liable to be dismissed. With these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint, being barred by time, by placing reliance upon Ishwarlal Amarnani Vs. Hero Puch and Others III (2011) CPJ-132 (NC). The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

8.                    The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

9.                    For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed in limine, with no order, as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

10.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

11.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

 27.03.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

Sd/-

                                                                                     [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg