DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No: 204/2014
Date of Institution : 23/09/2014
Date of Decision: 09/02/2015
In the matter of:
Kewal Singh son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh resident of Near High School, VPO Smaon, Tehsil Bhikhi, District Mansa. ...Complainant
Versus
Max Autos (Authorized Dealer for Maruti Udyog Limited Gurgaon), Mansa Road, Handiaya Chownk, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala, through its authorized signatory/responsible person.
...Opposite Party
Application U/s 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
1. Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member.
For the complainant : Sh. J.S. Bhangu, Advocate.
For the opposite party : Sh. Puneet Pabby, Advocate.
ORDER: BY SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
The present order of ours will dispose off an application moved by the complainant for condonation of delay. It is alleged in the application that, opposite party intentionally withheld registration and insurance of the Car in question. It is further alleged that, complainant came to know about the fraud for the first time in the month of February, 2014, when he got re-insured his vehicle and year of manufacturing was mentioned as 2011, in the insurance policy.
It is alleged in the application that, the delay in filing the complaint has been caused due to concealing of model, by the opposite party, which was not in the knowledge of the complainant. As such, complainant had sufficient cause for not preferring the complaint within time. So, the delay deserves to be condoned, otherwise the complainant will suffer an irreparable loss and will fail to get justice.
On the other hand, in reply to the application, the opposite party strongly opposed the application on the ground that, the present application of the complainant is wrong, false and filed by concealing true and material facts. It is averred in the reply that, the manufacturing year of the vehicle 2011, which is within the knowledge of the complainant from the very first day of purchase of Car i.e. 2.2.2012 and cause of action has arose on 2.2.2012 and period of limitation to file the complaint has been lapsed. Thus, the opposite party has prayed for the dismissal of application.
We have minutely perused the application, reply to the application and complaint filed by the complainant.
The Advocate for the opposite party has argued that, the vehicle was purchased on 2.2.2012 and the complaint filed on 19.9.2014 after a gap of about 2 ½ years and no sufficient ground has been given in the application as well as in the complaint for condoning the delay in filing the present complaint, as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant has argued that, opposite party has not given the RC and insurance cover to the complainant, but complainant has not stated that, when the RC was given to him, by the opposite party. The complainant further stated that, in the month of February, 2014, he approached the DTO, Barnala and come to know regarding the year of manufacturing and received other documents.
During arguments, complainant has not stated that, when the RC and insurance were given to him, by the opposite party and what amount for the insurance of the vehicle he has paid. It is difficult to admit that, when the RC and insurance policy of previous year has not been given to the complainant by the opposite party, then why he approached the opposite party for taking the insurance policy of his vehicle for the second year. The RC was prepared on 6.3.2012 and the copy of the same was produced by the complainant alongwith complaint, but he has not stated in his complaint that, when and from where the RC has come in his possession. The complaint as well as application for condonation of delay are silent about the temporary number, on which also the year of manufacturing is written.
It is also difficult to admit that, complainant remained plying the vehicle for more than 2 ½ years without RC, insurance and temporary number. It is also not the case of the complainant that, the vehicle was not plied by him. The complainant has failed to produce the record of services of the vehicle, from where it can be cleared that, the vehicle was in use or not. The complainant also not mentioned in the complaint as well as in the application that, by which mode he received the documents or RC, from the office of DTO and on which date he received the documents from the office of DTO. So, the complainant has failed to prove that, he only come to know regarding the year of manufacturing from the DTO office, in the month of February, 2014. The year of manufacturing is written on the temporary number and RC, which was prepared on 6.3.2012. The complainant has failed to give any sufficient reason in the complaint as well as in the application that, on which date he came to know regarding the manufacturing year of the vehicle and by which mode he obtained the documents from the DTO office.
In view of the facts stated above, there is no ground to condone the limitation. So, the application of the complainant for condonation of delay of limitation is dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint, which is not within limitation is also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
9th Day of February, 2015.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
