Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/79

Gagan Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Big Basket - Opp.Party(s)

Amrik Singh

09 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 79 dated 28.02.2023.                  

                                       Date of decision: 09.03.2023

 

Gagan Malhotra aged 36 years son of Sh.Sham Sunder Malhotra, R/o H.No.381, Behind Fortis Hospital, Opp. Radha Swami Satsang Ghar Gate No.4, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. 98158-33245.

                                     

                                                                                       ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

M/s Big Basket, Delhi-NCR, Khasra No.147/1-2-3, Village Bamnoli, Sector-28, Dwarka, New Delhi-110061, through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory/Manager.

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2020, as amended upto dtate.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Amrik Singh, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by raising a consumer dispute with regard to closure of Big Basket Wallet Balance having an amount of Rs.3199/- by the OP.. The complainant has prayed for issuance of directions to the OP for payment of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension, pain and agony suffered by him for committing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is supported with affidavit of complainant along with the annexed documents. 

2.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant on the point of admissibility of the complaint and gone through the record.

3.                Counsel for the complainant has reiterated the version of the complaint in his arguments and further contended that on account of closure of Big Basket Wallet Balance of the complainant, the complainant has suffered mental tension, agony, for which, he is entitled for the compensation. He has prayed for admissibility of the complaint at the preliminary stage.

4.                Before admitting of the complaint at preliminary stage, this Commission is also required to examine as to whether the complaint is within time or not.

5.                Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides as under:-

“Limitation Period:- (1)The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section(1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period;

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

 

6.                Perusal of the complaint and annexed documents shows that the transaction relates back to last week of November, 2020 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 28.03.2013 i.e. after the expiry of period of limitation. No sufficient reasons have been shown in the complaint for non-filing of the same within the period of limitation nor any application for condonation of delay has been moved.

7.                In SBI versus B.S.Agriculture Industries(I) Civil Appeal No.2067 of 2002 decided on 20.03.2009 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has  made the following observations:-

“(t)he expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24-A[now, S.69(1) in the new CP Act, 2019] is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed there under.”

It has been further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that “(i)if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum (Commission) decides the complaint on merits, the forum (Commission) would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

 

8.                Consequently, the present complaint is time barred and we do not inclined to proceed with the same and hence the same is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules.

9.                 File be indexed and consigned to record room, but after registering the same.

 

 (Monika Bhagat)            (Jaswinder Singh)      (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                      President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.03.2023

Gurpreet Sharma