Haryana

Jind

CC/144/2016

Ram Mehar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Subhash Chand Ajay Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. K.B. Nagar

05 Oct 2016

ORDER

                        CC No.144 of 2016

        Ram Mehar   Vs.  M/s Subhash Chand Ajay Kumar etc.
Present: Sh. Kul Bhushan Nagar Adv. counsel for complainant.
ORDER:
        Heard on the  admission of second complaint since the previous complaint bearing No.70 of 2014 was ordered to be dismissed in default on 12.8.2016 for non prosecution. Record of the previous complaint perused wherein the complainant preferred the complaint on 19.6.2014 challenging the sale of supurious chemicals by OPs vide bill No.2984 dated 21.12.2012 and now he  is again challenging the same action of OPs  in the second complaint pertaining to the period of December, 2012 in September 2016 i.e. after a period of 3 years & 9 months  whereas limitation for filing the consumer complaint is 2 years from the date of cause of action as enumerated in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act which lays down as under:-
The District Forum, 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.
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 Forum, 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 National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case
    may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay. 
           Further, on perusal of para No.11 of second complaint, it reveals that the complainant has filed the second complaint  explaining the cause that “on 12.8.2016 the above said complaint has been dismissed as default for non prosecution due to reason that on 12.8.2016 the complainant was in impression that his counsel will attend the Hon’ble Forum but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the counsel have to go at Bhiwani. The absence of complainant and his counsel on dated 12.8.2016 is not intentional but due to above mentioned reason”. In our view, it is not a sufficient & reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing of the second complaint by the complainant. 
2.        Even otherwise, the admission of second complaint will be a reviewing/
 by-passing of the previous order passed by the Forum on 12.8.2016 as the same has been  repeatedly prohibited by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide various decisions rendered in Civil Appeal No.936 of 2013 titled as Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Shyam Kapoor decided on 5.2.2013 reported in 2013(2) CLT page 5 & Civil Appeal No.4307 of 2007 titled as Rajeev Hitender Pathak & others Vs. Achyut Kashinath and Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2011 titled as M.O.H. Leathers Vs. United Commercial Bank, wherein it has been held that “District Forums & State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside exparte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised-The legislature chose to give the National Commission, power to review its exparte orders”.
3.            To support his version, counsel for complainant placed reliance on case law titled as Indian Machinery Company Vs. M/s Anshal Housing & construction Ltd. reported in 2016(2) Latest Judicial Reports page 468 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “complainant can file second complaint giving reasons as to why the earlier complaint could not be prosecuted” but in our view  reason  explained by the complainant in the second complaint for not continuing with the previous complaint is not justifiable rather by-passing of the previous order  because for continuation of the first complaint, there is no any obstacle or hitch rather the complainant   has to approach the Hon’ble State Commission or Hon’ble National Commission for reviewing of the previous order dated 12.8.2016 passed by the Forum in previous complaint No.70 of 2014 as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act read with latest decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred above, because this Forum has no jurisdiction to review its own order. So, the citation produced by the counsel for complainant is not helpful to the facts of the present case. 
In view of the discussions referred above, we have no option except to dismiss the second complaint preferred by the complainant by-passing the previous order dated 12.8.2016 passed by the Forum in due course. Hence, the second complaint preferred by the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to the concerned parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.