Kerala

StateCommission

RP/14/55

MD MANNAM AYURVEDA CO OPERATIVE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M S SREEPRIYA B - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL NARAYAN

23 Apr 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION NO.55/2014

ORDER DATED :23.04.2015

 

(RP filed against the order in IA.No.52/2014 in CC.No.66/2014 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta, dated :18.09.2014)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.V.V.JOSE : MEMBER

APPELLANT

Managing Director,

Mannam Ayurveda,

Co-operative Medical College,

MSM P.O., Pandalam,

Pathanamthitta, Kerala

(By Adv. Sri. Anil Narayan)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS

1. Ms. Sreepriya. B.,

D/o. Mr. J. Soman,

KPRA-182, Mangulam Lane,

Marappalam, Pattom (P),

Thiruvananthapuram

Now residing at

Madhavm, TCV 2/1432 (2), PGRA 25,

Kottakuzhi Jn.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 4

　

2. J. Soman,

KPRA-182, Mangulam Lane,

Marappalam, Pattom (P),

Thiruvananthapuram

Now residing at

Madhavm, TCV 2/1432 (2), PGRA 25,

Kottakuzhi Jn.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 4

3. Principal,

Mannam Ayurveda,

Co-operative Medical College,

MSMPO,

Pandalam, Pathanamthitta

4. Administrative Officer, (Accounts),

Mannam Ayurveda,

Co-operative Medical College,

MSMPO,

Pandalam, Pathanamthitta

(R1 & R2 by Adv. Sri. Meena C.R. &

R3 & R4 by Adv. Sri. Mathew & Balu)

ORDER

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Revision petitioner was the second opposite party in CC.No.66/2014 in the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The complainants alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties approached the consumer forum Pathanamthitta. The opposite parties raised the question of maintainability of the complaint on the ground of limitation. As per the allegations in the complaint the cause of action arose in July 2011. The complaint was instituted only on 07.06.2014. So the complaint was filed beyond two years from the date when the cause of action arose. The opposite parties filed IA.No.52/2014 seeking to hear the question of limitation as a preliminary issue. The consumer forum as per the impugned order held that there was no harm in dismissing the petition and ignoring the delay in filing the complaint as the forum was satisfied with the reasons stated in the complaint for the delay. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. The second opposite party questions the correctness of the order in this revision.

2. It is seen that the complaint was presented before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta with the following additional allegations. The complainants had earlier filed complaint before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram on the same cause of action and the complaint was dismissed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction 14 months and 9 days after filing the said complaint. So the complainants sought to exclude the said period in computing the limitation period. The opposite parties including the revision petitioner contended that the exclusion of the said period provided in the Limitation Act does not apply in the case of consumer protection Act, this being a special law.

3. Section 24(A) of the consumer protection Act provides for the period of limitation in filing complaints before the District Forum, state commission or the National commission as the case may be. As per this section a complaint can not be admitted after two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. But clause 2 of Section 24 (A) provides that a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub section (1) if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission that there is sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. As per the proviso the complaint can be entertained only after the District Forum etc records its reason for condoning the delay.

4. So the question is whether the reason alleged for delayed filing of the complaint was rightly accepted or not. The question is not one of applicability of the provisions in the Limitation Act as such. Here specific reason was alleged in the complaint itself explaining the delay for filing the complaint. The reason was that the complainant was bonafide litigating the same cause of action in another forum which found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction. It appears from the order passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC.No.196./2012 dated 20.08.2013 filed by the present complainants that the complaint was dismissed as not maintainable before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram as no part of the cause of action for the alleged claim accrued within its jurisdiction. The order further gave liberty to the complainants to approach the appropriate authority for redress of their grievance. It was in the above background fresh complaint was filed before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta incorporating allegations regarding the dismissal of the earlier complaint. Actually the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram should not have dismissed the complaint but should have returned the complaint for presentation before the Forum having territorial jurisdiction and in that case the complainants could have presented that complaint with application to condone the delay in filing the complaint stating the same reason alleged in the complaint. However specific allegations are incorporated in the complaint before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta explaining the reason for the delay in filing the complaint. No doubt, it is an acceptable reason. Hence we find no jurisdictional error or illegality or irregularity in the

order of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed but without cots.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

　

　

V.V.JOSE : MEMBER

 

　

　

Be/