ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard the Applicant/Complainant in person on the application for condonation of delay.
[2] Applicant/Complainant is a retired army officer of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and it is also revealed on going through his complaint that he is a practicing advocate before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.
[3] Dispute is related to the purchase of ‘TATA LPT 2416’ chassis for the purpose of LPG transportation in the year 1994 at Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Said tanker was accordingly was in use. It met with an accident on 25/3/1997 at Baruch (GujaratState). Thereafter, for repairs it was perhaps brought to Mumbai by the Non-Applicant/Opponent No.4, Shri P. Krishna Murthi, Proprietor of Sri Aditya Transports, having its office at Navi Mumbai on 25/3/1997 and it was sold in the month of October-1997. It is alleged that the Opponent No.4 did not give any accounts of the same and the same was behind the back of the Applicant/Complainant. Consequent to it, the Applicant/Complainant had filed a civil suit in a court at Solan, Himachal Pradesh. It was carried in appeal through the District Court and further in the High Court as well as to the Supreme Court. Thereafter, this consumer complaint came to be filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay.
[4] Reasons mentioned explaining the delay refer to the cause of action which arose in the year 1997 when the tanker was sold. Reasons mentioned are as under:-
“That the complaint is suffering from 40% osteoporosis leg disability after hit and run car accident on 18.2.2010 is suffering from 40% osteoporosis left disability and his right knee joint is badly injured and torn and is suffering from constant pain, he is restrained movements and it was aggravated due to severe and abnormal winter in Himachal Pradesh, could not draft, file complaint and got delayed which is beyond his control. He is still not fit to under take strenuous ordeals in buses and train but has come to file it in the Hon’ble State Commission under compulsion and prays to appreciate his physical condition, admit it, allow it, condone delay and oblige.”
[5] Reasons mentioned above hardly give any sufficient reason, nay any reason to explain the delay. When a proper regular civil remedy was pursued before a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction, there is no reason to resort to an additional summary remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In fact, in the backdrop of the present circumstances no ‘consumer dispute’ could be entertained since no deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could be prima-facie inferred or alleged.
[6] For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the application for condonation of delay and hence, it stands dismissed. Consequently, the complaint is not entertained and stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 14th September, 2012
