Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the OPs published an advertisement regarding their products and also solicited the dealership. An agreement dated 20.1.1996 was proposed to be finalized. The OPs demanded refundable security amount of Rs.five lacs, from the complainant, which was paid. However, as per commitment, the OPs could not supply quality material and equipments, as assured initially, and the equipments as supplied even in samples, were useless. The OPs could not supply the goods to the complainant, whereas, he also invested Rs.1 lac for infrastructure/advertisements etc. Under these circumstances, the complainant sought refund of security amount, vide letters dated 5.9.96, 7.4.97, 18.6.97, 15.7.97 & 12.4.1998 etc. and a petition before the Lok Adalat for compromise was also filed, but to no avail. It was stated that the acts of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no other alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. In their written reply, the OPs, pleaded that the complainant did not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’. It was further pleaded that the complainant had no cause of action and locus standi to file the complaint. It was stated that the complaint was hopelessly barred by time. It was denied that the complainant preferred to become a dealer. On the other hand, it was stated that he wanted to purchase the product and sell the same for commercial activity. It was denied that the OPs demanded refundable security of Rs.5 lacs. The Receipt dated 20.1.1996 amounting to Rs.3 lacs was accepted. It was denied that the OPs made commitment for supply of quality material and equipments and that the samples supplied were useless. It was further stated that the OPs were not responsible for the quality of the equipments as they were neither the manufacturers, nor the suppliers of the same. It was denied that the OPs were deficient in rendering service, or they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After going through the record, and perusing the written submissions on behalf of the complainant, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellant/complainant . 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, an application for condonation of delay of five years was filed by the complainant, alongwith the complaint, but the same was not decided by the District Forum. He further submitted that after the title, mentioned in the order of the District Forum, the words “Argued by: None for the parties” were written, but at the same time, the District Forum, in its order, recorded, at a number of places, that the arguments were heard. It was further submitted that when none was present, on behalf of the parties, then how the arguments were heard by the District Forum. He further submitted that the complaint was not barred by time, and the District Forum, was wrong, in holding so. He further submitted that the District Forum, was wrong, in dismissing the complaint. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent NO.2, submitted that the complainant did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’. He further submitted that the District Forum adverted to the application moved by the complainant, for condonation of delay, and came to the conclusion in para-8 of its order, that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. He further submitted that, in these circumstances, it could not be said that the application was not decided. He further submitted that the application could be decided in the main order itself, instead of deciding the same separately. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. First, coming to the question, as to how, the District Forum recorded in the impugned order, that it was argued by the Counsel for the OP, and the counsel for the complainant, it may be stated here, that the written arguments were submitted by the complainant. Objections were taken by the OPs in the written statement. It was, on the basis of written arguments submitted by the complainant, and, in view of the pleas taken by the OPs, in their written statement, that the District Forum, held discussion in detail, on various aspects of the matter in the impugned order. Even if, none of the Counsel for the parties, appeared at the time of arguments, and the written arguments had already been submitted, the same could be gone into by the District Forum, while deciding the case. The evidence produced by the parties, the pleas which were taken by the OPs, in the written reply, and the written arguments, which were submitted by the Counsel for the complainant, were duly discussed and the findings were recorded by the District Forum on the basis of the same. In these circumstances, first objection of the Counsel for the appellant, does not carry any substance, and the same is rejected. 11. The District Forum, was also right, in holding that the complaint was barred by time. Alongwith the complaint, an application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 5 years, was filed. The main ground, in that application, which was taken by the complainant, was that, he wrote letters C-11 to C-15, but no response was received. It was stated that the complainant through his guardian filed a petition in the Lok Adalat and the said petition was decided on 15.5.2006. Later on, a certified copy of the order, was supplied to him. It was further stated that, in the meantime, there was a total delay of 8 years, out of which 3 years were consumed, in the Lok Adalat, and, thus, there was actual delay of 5 years. No doubt, the District Forum did not decide the application separately. However, in para-8 of the impugned order, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the amount was deposited on 12.3.96, and the complaint under the Act could be filed within 2 years, whereas, it was filed on 19.2.2009, and, as such, the same was barred by time. The District Forum, in this para, in clear-cut terms, held that according to the complainant, he had issued reminders in 1997-98, and, thereafter approached the Lok Adalat, and it was, thereafter that he approached the District Forum. The discussion held by the District Forum in para-8, clearly goes to show, that it was cognizant of the application, filed by the complainant, for condonation of delay, in filing the complaint, and after taking into consideration the grounds, mentioned therein, and finding that no satisfactory explanation, for delay, had been furnished, by the complainant, had come to the conclusion, that the complaint was barred by time. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect, that the application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act was not decided, cannot be said to be correct. The findings of the District Forum, to the effect, that the complaint, being palpably barred by time, was liable to be dismissed, are correct. 12. The findings of the District Forum, on the point, that the complainant fell within the definition of ‘consumer’ and that he paid a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs to the OPs, are based, on the correct appreciation of the evidence, on record. However, the ultimate finding of the District Forum that the complaint, being barred by time, was liable to be dismissed, is to prevail. The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.3000/- 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
