DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 15th day of November 2024
Filed on: 26.10.2018
PRESENT
Shri. D.B. Binu Hon’ble President
Shri. V. Ramachandran Hon’ble Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Hon’ble Member
C.C. No. 450/2018
COMPLAINANT
- Cleetus Paul S/o.K.S.Paul East House Basin Road Kochi-682031
- Emily Cletus W/o. House Basin Rd east of Cletus Pole, Kochi-682031.
(By Adv Sabu.P.Joseph, Adv. K.S. Muhammed Saefin, Adv.Gayathri J, Adv. Arya K.K., M/S Legalis Remedia, Lawyers, C.P. Ummer Road, College (P.O), Ernakulam, Pin-682035, Ph: 0484 2378867, 9447329716, email-spj.legalisremedia@gmail.com)
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Alappat Heritage Gold & Diamonds Near Madhva Pharmacy Jn.. MG Road, Cochin-682035 Represented by Show Room Manager
- Show Room Manager Alappat Gold & Diamonds M.G.Road. Near Madhava Pharmacy Jn.. Cochin-682035
(OP 1st and 2nd Rep. by Adv Benny Antony Parel, Advocate, KMS Wakf Complex, Providence Road, Kochi-18)
FINAL ORDER
D.B. Binu, President
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
This complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The 1st complainant, a manager in a private firm, and the 2nd complainant, his wife and a nursery teacher, approached the 1st opposite party, a gold jewellery firm, in response to an advertisement published on 9th October 2016. The advertisement offered a discount of Rs. 1200 per gold coin and a free 200 mg gold coin for purchases made within four days. Upon visiting the jewellery store on 10th October 2016, the manager confirmed the offer and assured the complainants that old gold ornaments would be exchanged at the market price.
Trusting this offer, the complainants handed over 84.250 grams of old gold jewellery and purchased 72.600 grams of new gold ornaments. They also paid Rs. 8000 as an advance for a ring, to be booked at the prevailing gold rate until 10th January 2017. The total cost of the new gold ornaments was Rs. 2,25810.76, and after accounting for the value of the old gold, a balance of Rs. 11,700 remained, along with the advance paid.
Upon reviewing the bill later, the complainants discovered that they had not received the promised Rs. 1200 discount per gold coin. Instead, a reduction of Rs. 10689.24 was reflected on the bill, but this amount did not align with the original offer. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, the opposite parties refused to refund the Rs. 10,800 due to the complainants.
The complainants allege deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, and they seek a refund of Rs. 10,800, the Rs. 8000 advances for the ring, and Rs. 50,000 as compensation for
2. NOTICE:
The Commission issued a notice to both the opposite parties, directing them to respond to the complaint. In compliance with the notice, the opposite parties submitted their written version, addressing the claims made by the complainants and providing their defense.
3. THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES.
The opposite parties stated that the complaint is not maintainable, both in law and on facts. They claim that the complainants have approached the Commission without disclosing all the relevant facts and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. They deny the allegations made in the complaint and subject the claims to strict proof.
The opposite parties acknowledge that they issued a newspaper advertisement on 9th October 2016, offering a 200 mg gold coin and a Rs. 1200 discount per Pavan of gold purchased. This offer was valid for four days. The complainants visited the shop on 10th October 2016, exchanged 84.250 grams of old gold for 72.600 grams of new gold. The exchange was valued at Rs. 2,14,110.50 for the old gold and Rs. 2,25,810.76 for the new gold. The complainants also booked a ring by paying Rs. 8000, which they agreed to purchase within a year at the same market price.
The opposite parties stated that the complainants agreed to the prices and terms shown in the bill at the time of purchase. The net payable amount after the exchange was Rs. 11,700, and the complainants received nine gold coins of 200 mg each. They further state that the complainants did not submit the advance receipt within the required one-year period, making it impossible for them to claim the booked gold.
The opposite parties deny any wrongdoing or manipulation of the invoice and maintain that the proper discount was applied. They claim the total amount of Rs. 2,36,500 in the invoice includes a 5% tax, and the discount of Rs. 1200 for nine Pavans was duly deducted.
Lastly, the opposite parties assert that they are a reputed jewellery business since 1963 and allege that the complaint was filed with malicious intent to harm their reputation. They request the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Evidence:
The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with three documents. The documents in the complaint are marked as Exhibits A1 and A3. The complainant was examined as PW1.
- Exhibit A1: Copy of the bill issued by the 1st opposite party dated 11.10.2016.
- Exhibit A2: Copy of the receipt issued by the 1st opposite party dated 11.10.2016.
- Exhibit A3: Copy of the advertisement published in the Malayalam Manorama daily on 09.10.2016.
5. Points for Consideration:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?
6. The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
We have carefully considered the submissions made by the complainant and reviewed the entire evidence on record. It is noted that both parties did not file argument notes.
The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which stipulates that a complaint must be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises. In this case, the transaction between the complainants and the opposite parties occurred on 10th October 2016, and the complaint was filed on 26th October 2018, well beyond the prescribed limitation period of two years.
Under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Commission does have the discretion to condone the delay in filing a complaint if the complainant provides sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the stipulated time. However, the complainants in this case have failed to provide any prudent or satisfactory explanation for the delay. In fact, they have not provided any sufficient reason at all for the delay, making it impossible for the Commission to exercise its discretion to condone the delay.
In State Bank of India v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121], the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that “the consumer fora must dismiss the complaint filed beyond the period of two years unless sufficient cause for the delay is established by the complainant.” It was held that the purpose of the limitation period is to ensure finality and prevent stale claims from being litigated after an unreasonable amount of time.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
“In Haryana Urban Development Authority v. B.K. Sood, (2006) 1 SCC 164, this Court while dealing with the same provision viz., Section 24A of the Act, 1986 held:
"10. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act hereafter) expressly casts a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.”
We have carefully considered the submissions of the complainant and the opposite parties, as well as the evidence on record, including the proof affidavit and the marked exhibits. Despite the opportunity to explain the delay, the complainants have not presented any valid or reasonable cause for filing the complaint after the two-year limitation period.
Given the lack of a proper explanation, the Commission is bound by the law to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. The complainants' failure to justify the delay violates the statutory requirement under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In light of the legal principles laid down in the above-mentioned judgments and the complainants' inability to explain the delay, the complaint is not maintainable. There is no sufficient cause to condone the delay, and therefore, the complaint must be dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred.
Final Order:
The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable due to the violation of the limitation period under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No order as to costs.
The Commission finds that the complainants failed to provide sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the complaint. As the complaint is time-barred, the question of maintainability does not succeed, and the other issues raised in the complaint need not be addressed. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainants.
Dated this 15th day of November, 2024
Sd/-
D.B. Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order,
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
- Exhibit A1: Copy of the bill issued by the 1st opposite party dated 11.10.2016.
- Exhibit A2: Copy of the receipt issued by the 1st opposite party dated 11.10.2016.
- Exhibit A3: Copy of the advertisement published in the Malayalam Manorama daily on 09.10.2016.
Date of Despatch
By Hand ::
By post ::
AKR/
Order in CC No. 450/18
Dated : 15/11/2024
