DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Hari Chand Gupta s/o late Sh. Tara Chand Gupta r/o House No.2239, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 M/s Tata Motors, Bombay House, 2 Honi Modi Street, Mumbai (Maharashtra)

2.                 Hind Motors (India) Ltd., 15, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh (U.T)

3.                 Hind Motors (India) Ltd., B-16, Industrial Area, Phase-2 Mohali.

4.                 Global Administration Services, Vatika Triangle, 5^th Floor, Sushant Lok-I, Block-A, MG Road, Gurgaon (Haryana).

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person

                        Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Counsel for OPs.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had preferred a consumer complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (bearing C.C. No.126 of 2010), alleging excess charging of amount and not supplying the promised accessories to the tune of Rs.10,000/- at the time of purchase of the vehicle.  Alongwith these, the complainant also alleged some deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties when he took his vehicle for the fourth service at their authorised workshop.   The said complaint was dismissed vide order dated 29.7.2010 for want of territorial jurisdiction.  Against the said order, the complainant preferred an appeal in the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab through First Appeal No.1557 of 2010 which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2012.  Thereafter, the complainant preferred the present complaint on 17.12.2012. 

2.                           On 2.1.2013, when the case was listed for preliminary haring, the complainant filed an application dated 2.1.2013, under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for condonation of delay.

3.                           Notice of the application was issued to the opposite parties. 

4.                           Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and submitted their reply to the application taking preliminary objection to the effect that the present application deserves dismissal as the limitation period for filing the consumer complaint is restricted to two years. The facts with regard to the previous complaint filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur and the appeal are admitted.  It has thus been prayed that the application be dismissed. 

5.                           We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the application for condonation of delay, and have gone through the documents on record, including the written arguments. 

6.                           From the bare perusal of the consumer complaint filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur, it is apparent that the cause of action, mentioned in it, relates to the time when the vehicle was purchased in April 2007.   Admittedly the said complaint was dismissed vide order dated 29.7.2010 for want of territorial jurisdiction and even the appeal preferred by the complainant against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2012.

7.                           The complainant in his application for condonation of delay has stated that delay was not intentional as initially he filed the complaint at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur which was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.  Even the appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab.  He has contended that immediately after the outcome of the appeal, he preferred the present complaint within a period of one month and thus, according to him, the complaint is within limitation.  However, the complainant has failed to adduce his affidavit in support of the averments in the application, therefore, the same cannot be believed. 

8.                           Though the complainant has failed to specifically mention the long passage of time that he has spent in pursuing his remedy before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur and the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab and that such passage of time deserves condonation but, to our mind, the complainant while mentioning these facts in his application seeks the indulgence of this Forum to condone the delay on this score.  However, we are of the view that such a delay cannot be condoned as it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case titled Agari Enterprises Vs. Sesappa Saphaliga & Anr.-I(2013) CPR 101 (NC) that the act of approaching wrong Forum shall not entitle for condonation of delay.   Hence, the present complaint too is barred by time and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9.                           In view of the above discussion, the present application is dismissed with no order as to costs.  Resultantly, the consumer complaint is also dismissed, being barred by limitation. 

10.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

7.6.2013.

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER