Delhi

North East

CC/260/2018

Sh. Pramod - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 260/18

 

In the matter of:

	Pramod S/o Shri Prahlad Singh R/o C-1 /111 Nand Nagri Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.	Mahindra & Mahendra Finance Service Ltd. & ORS. Bhajan Pura Near ICICI Bank Wazirabad Road Delhi-110053   Sunil Chitkara S/o Harish Chander Chitkara R/o 112/28 Subhash Nagar Rohtak Haryana	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

26.12.2018 11.01.2019 11.01.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Arguments heard on admission. It is submitted by the complainant that the subject vehicle Mahindra Xylo bearing no. UP-16 AT7716, against which vide loan agreement no. 1937427, the complainant had availed of vehicle loan from OP1 had been surrendered on 03.02.2015 by the complainant to OP1 due to financial crisis suffered by him as a result of which he could not honour the EMI schedule. The subject vehicle was then subsequently sold by OP1 to OP2 in 2015 itself but both the OPs failed to get the ownership changed from the RC in the records of RTO despite several legal notices sent by the complainant to the OPs between October 2018 to December 2018.  Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against the OP1 to transfer ownership in favour of OP2 with immediate effect and action against OPs and suitable compensation.    
2. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for complainant and have keenly examined the material/correspondence on record. It is clear and apparent from the record placed before us and also from clarification sought by the Forum from the counsel for the complainant that there was no communication in writing between the parties after 2015 except the legal notices sent in 2018 by the complainant to the OPs. The complainant was put to specific question of production of RC to ascertain the factum of ownership of the subject vehicle which he denied of being in possession of though contrarily, his relief claimed in the present complaint pertains to change of ownership in the RC. The complainant had no explanation for remaining inactive for three years since surrender of the subject vehicle in February 2015 till issuance of legal notice in October – December 2018. Clearly the cause of action arose in February 2017 when the complainant had surrendered the subject vehicle to OP1 and was assured of change of ownership in the RC. The complainant should have immediately taken action of filing action within two years by February 2017. But on the contrary the complainant remained inactive for more than three an Half years and suddenly sent legal notice to OP in October 2018 – December 2018 and filed the present complaint after lapse of almost two year of the expiry of the limitation period.  This cannot entitle the complaint for waiver of limitation period and it is pertinent to mention here that the complaint is not even accompanied with any condonation of delay application under Section 24 A (2) of CPA.
3. Section 24 A of CPA deals with the limitation period for complaints to be filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen and contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words the consumer Forums  do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not file within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arise. The law on the said issue has been clearly settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in so far as the nature and scope of Section 24 A is concerned in the landmark judgments of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd (2009) 7 SCC 768, State Bank of India Vs B S Agricultural Industries (2009) 5 SCC 121 and V. N. Shrikhande (Dr) Vs Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.  The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Jansatta Sahkari Awas Samati Ltd Vs Kone Elevators India Pvt Ltd I (2016) CPJ 190 NC held that mere sending a legal notice does not constitute a cause of action nor does it extend a period of limitation prescribed in the Act in view of settled proposition of law under Section 24 A of CPA as mandatory in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Agriculture Case (Supra) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court took the view that Section 24 A is peremptory in nature and requires consumer Forums to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Hon’ble National Commission in the Judgment of Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd and Anr. Vs Satinder Pal Singh II (2018) CPJ 245 (NC) has held that the complainant remaining inactive and suddenly sending legal notice to OP cannot entitle him for waiver of limitation period as any amount of correspondence cannot extend limitation period.
4. In light of the aforesaid judgments and settled law therein, even if the notices sent by complainant in October – December 2018 was not replied, the period of limitation would not extend beyond two years starting from February 2015 ending February 2017 and since the present complaint has been filed belatedly after almost two years, the same is time barred from the date of cause of action, being perverse to the special limitation period prescribed under CPA to resolve the consumer disputes in a speedy manner.
5. We therefore dismiss the present complaint as being time barred since admitting, such highly belated complaints the same would defeat the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 11.01.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)    President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member