M/s. Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation, Raichur V/S Mr. Gyanchand Choudhari S/o. LateRAtnlal Choudhari, Raichur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/111

Mr. Gyanchand Choudhari S/o. LateRAtnlal Choudhari, Raichur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation, Raichur - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Daftari & Daftari

15 Feb 2011

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/111

Mr. Gyanchand Choudhari S/o. LateRAtnlal Choudhari, Raichur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Karnataka State Ware Housing Corpration, Bangalore M/s. Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation, Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMMON ORDER ON I.A. NO-1 IN CC.No. 98/10 & CC.No. 111/10. CC.No. 98/10 is a complaint filed by one Gyanchand Choudary Jain against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation., U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act for to award a sum of Rs. 1,70,912/- with interest, compensation and cost. CC.No. 111/10 is a complaint filed by the same complainant against the same opposites U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act for to award a sum of Rs. 1,67,494/- with interest, compensation and cost. 2. IA No-1 in CC No. 98/10 was filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of (13) years (7) months and (4) days by excluding prescribed period of (2) years, in filing this complaint for the reasons stated in the affidavit annexed to this application. IA No-1 in CC No. 111/10 was filed by the same complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of (13) years (8) months (2) days by excluding prescribed of (2) years, in filing this complaint for the reasons stated in the affidavit annexed to this application. 3. Both the applications filed by him in CC.No. 98/10 and 111/10 are on common grounds, as such both applications heard together, and disposed of them by this common order. 4. The brief facts of the applications filed by him are that, he stored 25 Bales of F.P. Cotton vide Receipt No. KAW 289716 dt. 15-03-95 and another 25 Bales of F.P. Cotton vide Receipt No. KAW 289714 dt. 15-03-95 in the ware housing of opposites. In the month of April 1995 there was a fire accident in the go-down of opposite, he was initially paid part amount for the loss sustained by him, opposites not paid the full amount on the assured sum of the goods. It promised him that it will settle the insurance full claim, thereafter it told to him that, the Civil Appeal 651/06 is pending before the Honble Supreme Court and payment will be made after the result of the said appeal. Till today he not heard about it, opposites intentionally dragging on for avoiding payments, hence, there was a delay in filing complaint, accordingly he prayed for to condone the delay of (13) years (7) months and (4) days in C.C. No. 98/10 and similarly he prayed for to condone the delay of (13) years (8) months and (2) days in CC.No. 111/10. 5. These two petitions were resisted by the opposites Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation, by filing separate objections on common grounds. The main case of opposites in both the cases for to resist this applications are that, they have paid full amount to the complainant which was received by the Insurance Company. The complainant acknowledged the receipt of said amount in both the cases. Hence there is nothing to be paid to the complainant as prayed in his complaint. The reasons stated in the affidavits annexed to the two applications are not proper, sufficient and good reasons to condone such abnormal delay. The complainant in each cases, not produced any single piece of documents to substantiate sufficient cause to condone such delay in filing his complaints, accordingly, opposites prayed for to dismiss the said two applications of complainant among other grounds. 6. In-view of the contentions and Rival contentions of the parties in these two petitions. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant has made out proper sufficient and good grounds for to condone the delay of (13) years (7) months and (4) days in filing his complaint bearing CC.No. 98/10. 2. Whether the complainant similarly made out proper sufficient and good grounds for to condone the delay of (13) years (8) months and (2) days for to file his complaint bearing CC.No. 111/10.? 3. What order in both the cases? 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the Negative. (2) In the Negative. (3) In view of the finding on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following: REASONS POINT NO.1:- 8. Admittedly complainant stated in IA-1 in C.C. No. 98/10 as his complaint is delayed by (13) years (7) moths (4) days. Similarly in IA-1 in CC.No. 111/10 as his complaint is delayed by (13) years (8) months (2) days. 9. The reasons assigned for such abnormal delay in both the IAs are more or less on similar grounds. The first ground, that was taken by the complainant for such abnormal delay in filing his two complaints mentioned above is that, on 12-04-1995 the fire accident took place in the godown of opposites, where he kept 25 Bails in each case and due to it, all the cotton Bails burnt. It is clear from the receipt produced by the opposites dt. 22-03-96 executed by this complainant for having receipt of the amount of Rs. 53,090/- towards the said incident. In view of these facts, cause of action for the complainant is, the date of fire accident i.e, from 12-04-95 within two years if not, then within two years from the date of execution of his receipt dt. 22-03-96 for having receipt of the amount but these complaints are not field within two years of limitation from any one of the above said dates, as such these two complaints are clearly time barred complaints. 10. The complainant intended to take the benefit of the letter written by the opposites dt. 24-01-08, as such we have taken note of the said letter in which the opposites have stated regarding the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 651/06. Admittedly the said appeal preferred by the opposite was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court, the present complainant is not a party to it. As such we are of the view that, the letter dt. 24-01-08 is not enlarging the limitation period of two years as provided U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act to the complaint. 11. In Para-2 of the said letter, it is noted that, the Insurance Company paid an amount towards this incident vide receipt dt. 22-03-06 passed by this complainant not discloses the fact that, he received that much of amount in protest. As such the letter dt. 24-05-10 filed by the opposites, not giving any fresh cause of action to this complainant to file these two complaints. 12. The second point, that was canvassed before us by the learned advocate for complainant is that, opposite all along kept mum, intentionally dragged on the matter with one or other pretext, as such the cause of action is continuing one, accordingly he prayed for to condone the delay. 13. In support of this submissions, the learned advocate for complainant relied on the following judgments: (1) (2006) CPJ 251 (NC) Yashpal Marwaha V/s. Pushpa Builders Ltd., and another. (2) Photo copy of the judgment of the Honble State Commission in Appeal No. 22/08. 14. We have gone through the principles laid down by their lordships in rulings referred above, we are of the view that, the facts stated in the judgment cited at Sl.No. 1 are quite different to the facts of the present case. Opposite of that case admitted the deficiency in its service, in that circumstances, their lordships held as, the cause of action for the complainant to file his complaint was continuous and subsisting. In the present case no such circumstances out coming to apply those principles to this case. 15. The facts noted in the rulings cited at Sl.No. 2 are different to the facts of the present case on hand. In view of the circumstances stated above, notice issued by him dt. 09-09-10 or the letter of opposite dt. 24-01-08 are not extending limitation period of two years as contemplated U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act. Hence we are of the view that, no special circumstances or the reasons out coming from any one of these IAs to condone the abnormal delay in filing complaint bearing CC.No. 98/10 and complaint bearing CC No. 111/10, accordingly we have rejected the contentions of the complainant and answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 16. In-view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER I.A.No-1 filed by the complainant U/sec 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act in CC.No. 98/10 is dismissed. Consequently complaint bearing CC.No. 98/10 is dismissed as time barred complaint. I.A.No-1 filed by the complainant U/sec 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act in CC.No. 111/10 is dismissed. Consequently the complaint bearing CC No. 111/10 is dismissed as time barred complaint. Keep the copy of this order in CC.No. 111/10. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 15-02-11) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

COMMON ORDER ON I.A. NO-1 IN CC.No. 98/10 & CC.No. 111/10. CC.No. 98/10 is a complaint filed by one Gyanchand Choudary Jain against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation., U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act for to award a sum of Rs. 1,70,912/- with interest, compensation and cost. CC.No. 111/10 is a complaint filed by the same complainant against the same opposites U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act for to award a sum of Rs. 1,67,494/- with interest, compensation and cost. 2. IA No-1 in CC No. 98/10 was filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of (13) years (7) months and (4) days by excluding prescribed period of (2) years, in filing this complaint for the reasons stated in the affidavit annexed to this application. IA No-1 in CC No. 111/10 was filed by the same complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of (13) years (8) months (2) days by excluding prescribed of (2) years, in filing this complaint for the reasons stated in the affidavit annexed to this application. 3. Both the applications filed by him in CC.No. 98/10 and 111/10 are on common grounds, as such both applications heard together, and disposed of them by this common order. 4. The brief facts of the applications filed by him are that, he stored 25 Bales of F.P. Cotton vide Receipt No. KAW 289716 dt. 15-03-95 and another 25 Bales of F.P. Cotton vide Receipt No. KAW 289714 dt. 15-03-95 in the ware housing of opposites. In the month of April 1995 there was a fire accident in the go-down of opposite, he was initially paid part amount for the loss sustained by him, opposites not paid the full amount on the assured sum of the goods. It promised him that it will settle the insurance full claim, thereafter it told to him that, the Civil Appeal 651/06 is pending before the Honble Supreme Court and payment will be made after the result of the said appeal. Till today he not heard about it, opposites intentionally dragging on for avoiding payments, hence, there was a delay in filing complaint, accordingly he prayed for to condone the delay of (13) years (7) months and (4) days in C.C. No. 98/10 and similarly he prayed for to condone the delay of (13) years (8) months and (2) days in CC.No. 111/10. 5. These two petitions were resisted by the opposites Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation, by filing separate objections on common grounds. The main case of opposites in both the cases for to resist this applications are that, they have paid full amount to the complainant which was received by the Insurance Company. The complainant acknowledged the receipt of said amount in both the cases. Hence there is nothing to be paid to the complainant as prayed in his complaint. The reasons stated in the affidavits annexed to the two applications are not proper, sufficient and good reasons to condone such abnormal delay. The complainant in each cases, not produced any single piece of documents to substantiate sufficient cause to condone such delay in filing his complaints, accordingly, opposites prayed for to dismiss the said two applications of complainant among other grounds. 6. In-view of the contentions and Rival contentions of the parties in these two petitions. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant has made out proper sufficient and good grounds for to condone the delay of (13) years (7) months and (4) days in filing his complaint bearing CC.No. 98/10. 2. Whether the complainant similarly made out proper sufficient and good grounds for to condone the delay of (13) years (8) months and (2) days for to file his complaint bearing CC.No. 111/10.? 3. What order in both the cases? 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the Negative. (2) In the Negative. (3) In view of the finding on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following: REASONS POINT NO.1:- 8. Admittedly complainant stated in IA-1 in C.C. No. 98/10 as his complaint is delayed by (13) years (7) moths (4) days. Similarly in IA-1 in CC.No. 111/10 as his complaint is delayed by (13) years (8) months (2) days. 9. The reasons assigned for such abnormal delay in both the IAs are more or less on similar grounds. The first ground, that was taken by the complainant for such abnormal delay in filing his two complaints mentioned above is that, on 12-04-1995 the fire accident took place in the godown of opposites, where he kept 25 Bails in each case and due to it, all the cotton Bails burnt. It is clear from the receipt produced by the opposites dt. 22-03-96 executed by this complainant for having receipt of the amount of Rs. 53,090/- towards the said incident. In view of these facts, cause of action for the complainant is, the date of fire accident i.e, from 12-04-95 within two years if not, then within two years from the date of execution of his receipt dt. 22-03-96 for having receipt of the amount but these complaints are not field within two years of limitation from any one of the above said dates, as such these two complaints are clearly time barred complaints. 10. The complainant intended to take the benefit of the letter written by the opposites dt. 24-01-08, as such we have taken note of the said letter in which the opposites have stated regarding the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 651/06. Admittedly the said appeal preferred by the opposite was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court, the present complainant is not a party to it. As such we are of the view that, the letter dt. 24-01-08 is not enlarging the limitation period of two years as provided U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act to the complaint. 11. In Para-2 of the said letter, it is noted that, the Insurance Company paid an amount towards this incident vide receipt dt. 22-03-06 passed by this complainant not discloses the fact that, he received that much of amount in protest. As such the letter dt. 24-05-10 filed by the opposites, not giving any fresh cause of action to this complainant to file these two complaints. 12. The second point, that was canvassed before us by the learned advocate for complainant is that, opposite all along kept mum, intentionally dragged on the matter with one or other pretext, as such the cause of action is continuing one, accordingly he prayed for to condone the delay. 13. In support of this submissions, the learned advocate for complainant relied on the following judgments: (1) (2006) CPJ 251 (NC) Yashpal Marwaha V/s. Pushpa Builders Ltd., and another. (2) Photo copy of the judgment of the Honble State Commission in Appeal No. 22/08. 14. We have gone through the principles laid down by their lordships in rulings referred above, we are of the view that, the facts stated in the judgment cited at Sl.No. 1 are quite different to the facts of the present case. Opposite of that case admitted the deficiency in its service, in that circumstances, their lordships held as, the cause of action for the complainant to file his complaint was continuous and subsisting. In the present case no such circumstances out coming to apply those principles to this case. 15. The facts noted in the rulings cited at Sl.No. 2 are different to the facts of the present case on hand. In view of the circumstances stated above, notice issued by him dt. 09-09-10 or the letter of opposite dt. 24-01-08 are not extending limitation period of two years as contemplated U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act. Hence we are of the view that, no special circumstances or the reasons out coming from any one of these IAs to condone the abnormal delay in filing complaint bearing CC.No. 98/10 and complaint bearing CC No. 111/10, accordingly we have rejected the contentions of the complainant and answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 16. In-view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER I.A.No-1 filed by the complainant U/sec 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act in CC.No. 98/10 is dismissed. Consequently complaint bearing CC.No. 98/10 is dismissed as time barred complaint. I.A.No-1 filed by the complainant U/sec 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act in CC.No. 111/10 is dismissed. Consequently the complaint bearing CC No. 111/10 is dismissed as time barred complaint. Keep the copy of this order in CC.No. 111/10. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 15-02-11) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.