आदेश :- (दि.20/04/2011) (द्वारा - श्री.एम्.डी.देशमुख, अध्‍यक्ष) (1) प्रस्‍तुतचे प्रकरणी स्विकृत करणेवरती आहे. तक्रारदारांनी सामनेवाला यांनी दि.07.02.2007 रोजी पुकारलेल्‍या लिलावाद्वारे बजाज पल्‍सर 150 ईएस नं. एम्.एच्.10 ए.डी.8971 हे वाहन खरेदी केले आहे. लिलावाची संपूर्ण रक्‍कम भरलेली आहे. सामनेवाला यांनी सदर वाहन तक्रारदारांच्‍या नांवे केलेले नाही व वाहनाचा ताबा दिलेला नाही. त्‍यामुळे तक्रारदारांनी सदरचे वाहन त्‍यांचे नांवा करुन देणेबाबत आदेश व्‍हावेत, तसेच नुकसान भरपाई मिळणेबाबत आदेश व्‍हावेत अशी तक्रार या मंचासमोर दाखल केलेली आहे. (2) तक्रारदारांचे वकिलांचे युक्तिवाद ऐकणेत आले. प्रस्‍तुत तक्रारीचे अवलोकन केले असता तक्रारी कारण दि.07.02.2007 रोजी घडलेचे दिसून येते. तक्रारदारांन प्रस्‍तुत प्रकरणी विलंब माफीचा अर्ज दाखल केलेला नाही. ग्राहक संरक्षण कायदा, 1986 कलम 24 (ए) चा विचार करता प्रस्‍तुतची तक्रार मुदतीत दाखल केलेचे दिसून येत नाही. सबब, प्रस्‍तुत तक्रारीस मुदतीचा बाध येतो. उपरोक्‍त विवेचनास हे मंच खालील पूर्वाधार विचार घेत आहे :- (1) (Supreme Court) (CP) p.481 - State Bank of India v. B.S.Agricultural Industries Banking - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24A - Deficiency in service - Section 2(1)(g) - Section 2 (1)(o) - complainant-respondent carrying on business of manufacturing and supplying engines and pump sets - Seven bills of the amount of Rs.2,47,154/- sent by it to the opposite party - appellate bank on 21.04.1994 drawn on Unique Agro Service, P.O. Heria (West Bengal) together with GRs of transporters for collection and remitance of the proceeds toit i.e. the complainant - Bank instructed to deliver the bills and GRs to the drawee against payment - Bank also instructed to return the documents if not honoured by the drawee by 7.6.1994 - Complaint to the District Forum that the Bank neither sent the amount of Rs.2,47,154/- to the complainant nor returned the said bills and GRs - Bank resisted the complaint on the ground of its being time barred and that it had returned the bills and GRs to the complainant’s B.M. Konar, Sales Manager - District Forum allowed the complaint directing the Bank to pay Rs. 2,47,154/- to the complainant with 15% interest and Rs.5,000/- as compensation - Despite the specific plea of the complaint being time barred, point for determination in this regard neither framed nor considered - Bank’s appeal failed toget it any relief from the State Commission - National Commission upheld the concurrent orders of the Forums by the Bank aggrieved by the said order - Provision of Section 24A, which prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by a Forum, is peremptory in nature - It requires a Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within twoyears from the date of accral of cause of action - Delay in filing the complaint may be condoned by the Forum for the reasons tobe recorded in writing if sufficient cause is shown - Expression ‘shall not admit a complaint, occurring in the Section is a sort of legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder - In other words, it isthe duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect toit -Whether the complaint in this case filed within time i.e., within two years of the accrual of cause of action ? Letter dated 21.04.1994 of the complainant clearly instructed the Bank to return the documents if not honoured by the drawee by 7.6.1994 - Obviously, the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 7.6.1994 when it did not receive the amount of Rs. 2,47,154/- nor the documents - Limitation thus began to run from 7.6.1994 - Therefore, the complaint filed on 5.5.1997 was apparently time barred, having been not filed within two years - Bank also wrote to thecomplainant in its letter dated 28.3.1995 that it had returned the bills to its B.M.Konar on 10.5.1994 - Complaint filed on 5.5.1997 even beyond two years therefrom - Complaint held tobe barred by time and, therefore, dismissed on that count - Appeal allowed - Decision rendered by the National Commission set aside. (2) 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court)(CP) - Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. versus National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another. Limitation - Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24A - Appeal - Section 23 - Fire Policy “c” taken by the appellant from the respondent No.1, National Insurance Co.Ltd. for a period of 4 months on 4.12.1987 against loss or damage by fire - On 8.3.1988 they obtained a loan from respondent No.2, Indian Bank by hypothecating the tobacco stored in the godown - In the intervening night between 22nd and 23rd March, 1988 a fire broke out in the godown allegedly due to electrical short circuit burning the entire stock of tobacco - Matter reported both to the insurance company and the bank - Bank preferred a claim with the insurance complay on 14.07.1988 but not pursued it any further - A claim form asked by the appellant from the insurance company for the first time n 06.11.1994 - Getting no response, a legal notice issued to it on 26.10.1995 - reply sent by the insurance company on 21.03.1986 delaying the cactum of fire and refusing to issue a claim form, the claim being time barred - Filing of two complaints by the apellant before National Commission on 21.10.1997 - Contention raised that haing regard to the insurance company’s letter dated 21.3.1996, their complaints were well within time - Appellant’s stand failed to find favour with the Commission - Cause of action admittedly arose in the intervening night of 22nd/23rd March, 1988 - Complaints, therefore, held to be barred by limitation of two years having regard to section 24A of the Act - Aggrieved, the present appeal filed challenging the commission’s order - Provision of Section 24A casts a duty on a Consumer Forum todismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies it that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action arose - Cause of action for the appellant clearly arose on 22nd/23rd March, 1988 - By no stretch of imagination the insurance company’s letter dated 21.3.1996 in relply to the appellant’s legal notice dated 4.1.1996 declining to issue the claim form, resulted in extending the period of limitation - Accordingly held : the complaint of the appellant and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation - Commission’s action of dismissing the same upheld - Appeal dismissed. (3) तसेच, प्रस्‍तुत तक्रारीचा गुणवत्‍तेवर विचार केला असता प्रस्‍तुत प्रकरणी उपस्थित केलेला वाद हा लिलावामध्‍ये खरेदी केलेल्‍या वाहनाबाबतचा वाद आहे. ग्राहक संरक्षण कायदा, 1986 चा विचार करता लिलावामध्‍ये उदभवणारे वाद हे ग्राहक वाद होत नाही या निष्‍कर्षाप्रत हे मंच येत आहे. सदर निष्‍कर्षास पूर्वाधार म्‍हणून राजस्‍थान फायनान्सियल कार्पोरेशन विरुध्‍द एम्.के.भूत आणि इतर - 2009 सीटीजे 1248 (राष्‍ट्रीय आयोग) = AIR 2009 (NOC) 2561 (NCC) - सदर पूर्वाधारातील महत्‍त्‍वाचा मुद्दा पुढीलप्रमाणे :- Auction sale - Consumer dispute - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(e) - Complainant participated in an auction of movable and immovable properties held by the petitioner - A sum of Rs.1,75,000/- deposited by him as earnest money at the time of giving the bid - His bid being the highest, accepted by the petitioner and later on also approved by the State Government 25 per cent of the bid amount not paid whithin the specified period - Earnest money of Rs.1,75,000/- forfeited by the petitioner in terms of the auction notice - Complaint dismissed by the District Forum - State Commission, however, allowed the appeal of the complainant setting aside the impunged order - Therefore, the present petition - In an auction sale there is no arrangement of hiring of service of the seller for consideration by the bidder (purchaser) - Therefore, any dispute arising between them would not be a consumer dispute - That being so, the Consumer Forums cannot grant relief where the transaction has arisen out of auction - State Commission acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction - Order passed by the State Commission set aside and that of the District Forum restored. तसेच, U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh & ors. - 2009 AIR SCW 2522 :: AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1607 :: 2009 (4) ALJ 116 (SUPREME COURT) सदर पूर्वाधारातील महत्‍त्‍वाचा मुद्दा पुढीलप्रमाणे :- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986) - S. 2(c), (d) (e) - Complaint - Jurisdiction to entertain - Public auction of existing sites - Purchaser/lessee is not “Consumer” - Owner is not “trader” or “service provider” - Any grievance by purchaser/lessee - Would not give rise to complaint or consumer dispute - Fora under Act cannot entertain or decide any complaint by purchaser/lessee against owner of sites. Where there is a public aution without assuring any specific or particular amentities, and the prospective purchaser/lessee participates in the auction after having an opportunity of examining the site, the bid in the auction is made keeping in view the existing situation, position and condition of the site. If all amentities are available, he would offer a higher amout. if there are no amenties, or if the site suffers from any disadvantages, he would offer a lesser amount, or may not participate in the auction. Once with open eyes, a person participates in an auction, he caanot thereafter be heard to say that he would not pay the balance of the price/premium or the stipulated interest on the delayed payment, or the ground rent, on the ground that the site suffers from certain disadvantages or on the ground that amenties are not provided. With reference to a public auction of existing sites (as contrasted from sites to be ‘formed’), the purchaser/lessee is not a consumer, the owner is not a ‘trader’ or ‘service provider’ and the grievance does not relate to any matter in regard to which a complaint can be filed. Therefore, any grievance by the purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute and the fora under the Act will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction of sites. उपरोक्‍त विवेचन व पूर्वाधार यांचा विचार करता हे मंच खालीलप्रमाणे आदेश पारीत करीत आहे. आदेश 1. प्रस्‍तुतची तक्रार अस्विकृत करणेत येते.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.V.N.Shinde] MEMBER[HONABLE MR. Mr.M.D.Deshmukh] PRESIDENT | |
