Shri A. Chanda, Member.   

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has prayed for directing the OP to pay compensation for 500 books and also for damages, harassment and mental agony against the OP on the ground that the complainant suffered loss of Rs.;1 lakh (200x500copies) along with further loss and damages due to delay of such supply of books from the side of OP.

          It is stated by the complainant that he placed an order for printing of 500 books at a cost of Rs.19,500/- to the OP for printing per books namely Rita’s Gormet Kitchen.  It is also stated by the complainant that subsequently the OP demanded more money on different dates and on instalments the OP accepted Rs.65,000/- for such job. 

          Fact remains that while the OP delivered some books, the distributors returned those books due to incorrect printing and for other defects such as cover was not properly posted along with other errors and for such act on the part of OP, the complainant regularly made contact with them and requested to set ride the defects, but the OP started avoiding the complainant for the reasons best known to them.  Finding no other way, the complainant sent legal notice dated 01-04-2010 asking the OP to deliver 500 books with proper printing, but to no effect.  Hence, this case.

          On the contrary the OP by filing written version has stated that an order, for printing of 500 books was received from the complainant and according to the order, they had supplied 500 books to the complainant/petitioner on 25-10-2006 and raised a bill No.51/2006-2007 for Rs.35,600/-.  It is also state4d by the OP that they have received the payment in full i.e. Rs.35,360/- but they denied that the petitioner/complainant ever had paid them Rs.65,000/-.  It is further stated by the OP that the complainant had never objected and put any grievance in respect of any defect of the books being supplied printed by them, instead she made full payment against the delivery to her full satisfaction.  In its submission, the OP also stated that the first complaint was made only vide the petitioner’s Advocate letter dated 01-04-2010 and lodged the formal complaint before the Consumer Forum only on 28-04-2010 wherein the OP had also replied on 22-04-2010 against the legal notice sent by the complainant.  Moreover, it is alleged by the OP that the complaint has not been filed within stipulated period from 25-10-2006, when the OP supplied the books to the complainant.  So, the complaint is barred by limitation in terms of Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Decision with Reasons

Moot question is whether the presenting complaint is barred by limitation u/s. 24A of C.P. Act, or not. 

          In this regard, heard argument of both Ld. Lawyers of the parties of this case.  On assessment and on evaluation of the argument of the Ld. Lawyers and also considering the date of filing of this case on 08-07-2010 and also the lastr letter of the complainant dated 24-03-2010 we find that complainant wrote this letter to one Ms. Arora a bookseller company intimating the fact that she is facing a dispute with the OP etc. 

But from the body of the complaint it is found that complainant has not disclosed about the date of giving offer for pending 500 books or the date of delivering some books to the distributors and date of return of those books due to incorrect printing.  But anyhow it is found from the receipt dated 10-10-2006 the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- and on 15-10-2006 paid Rs.20,000/- to the OP and on 25-10-2006 LESER AID issued tax invoice in support of receiving order for printing binding DTP and supply of cooking book Rita’s Gourmet Kitchen and from letter dated 14-11-2006 issued by the OP in favour of the complainant it is proved that OP received enter amount for printing binding and supply of the said book from complainant on 14-11-2006.

Considering the above receipts it is proved that the entire dispute was settled on 14-11-2006 in between the parties. 

But if actually dispute arisen in between the present complainant and OP in that case same was arisen on and from that date 14-11-2006 whyen the defect of the book was detected and troubled cropped up.

But anyhow the present complainant was filed within two years from the date 14-11-2006 that means by 14-11-2008. But on proper study of the record it is found that the complaint was filed on 08-07-2010 i.e long after four years from the date of cause of action arising on 14-11-2006.

But as per provision of section 24A of C.P. Act, it is mandatory to file an application for condonation of delay along with the complaint before the hearing of admission matter of the complaint but anyhow no such condonation of delay petition was filed by the complainant along with the complaint for consideration.  But this Forum without considering the vital limitation in respect of filing this complaint admitted it without hearing the application u/s.24A of the C.P. Act and another factor is that after studying the order-sheet it is found complainant on 23-07-2010 filed such application but that was not disposed of and after further scrutiny of the order sheet it was found that the said petition was not sent to the OP for seeking his objection if any for disposal of the limitation application but Ld. Forum admitted it. And no doubt in the eye of law the procedure was adopted by the Forum is completely illegal.  So, we have considered the limitation point.    And after studying the entire complaint and also the application for condonation of delay as filed on 23-07-2010 we have gathered that complainant has failed to prove by filing any documents on materials that there was sufficient cause for delay for four years from the date of cause of action is not at all explained.  At the same time no reasonable and sufficient ground is shown in the said application.  On the contrary, the complainant run her business in respect of selling the books as stated above for four years in the market since 2006, October.  But in the mean time i.e. within the limitation period up to 14-11-2008 there was no trouble in selling the above printed books supplied by the OP.  And so, it is proved that there was no ground to file any case by the complainant against OP after full satisfaction of the entire transaction on 14-11-2006.  But in fact, after proper scrutiny of the and materials on record it is found the complainant has failed to prove any ground for considering the prayer for condoning her delay in filing this complaint and further it is proved that there is no legal and justified ground to consider such condonation of delay petition of the complainant filed on 23-07-2010.  

In the light of the above observation we are of view that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and for which the present complaint is barred u/s.24A of the C.P. Act.  And in view of the fact the order of admitting the compliant for further proceeding is not legal.

          Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is barred by limitation u/s.24A of C.P. Act.