BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINTS NO. DCFR. 35/11 to 38/11.
THIS THE 26th DAY OF MAY 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANTS :- Mr. Gyanchand Choudhari, S/o. Late Ratanlal Chudari,:
[In C.C NO. 35/11] Aged 67 years, Occ: Business, Prop. Ratanlal Evant Kumar,
R/o. 11-2-23, Loharwadi, M.G. Road, Raichur.
[In C.C NO.36/11] :- Mr. Gyanchand Choudhari, S/o. Late Ratanlal Chudari,:
Aged 67 years, Occ: Business, Prop. Ratanlal Evant Kumar,
R/o. 11-2-23, Loharwadi, M.G. Road, Raichur.
[In C.C NO.37/11] :- Mr. Pavan Kumar, S/o. Late Chandulal Age: 39 years, Occ:
Business Rep. By his SPA Holder Gyanchand Choudhari, S/o. Late Ratanlal aged 67 years, Both R/o. 11-2-23, Loharwadi, M.G. Road, Raichur.
[In C.C NO.38/11] :- Mr. Gyanchand Choudhari, S/o. Late Ratanlal Chudari,:
Aged 67 years, Occ: Business, Prop. Ratanlal Evant Kumar,
R/o. 11-2-23, Loharwadi, M.G. Road, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
COMMON OPPOSITE:- 1. M/s. Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation PARTIES Near, APMC Market Yard, Rajendra Gunj, Raichur. Rep.
By its Depot Manager.
2. M/s. Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation 43,
Primrose Road, Bangalore- 560 025. By its
MD/Secretary.
Date of institution.
[In C.C NO. 35/11 to 38/11] :- 10-05-11.
Date of disposal :- 26-05-11
Complainants represented by Sri. Daftary & Daftary, Advocate.
---
These cases coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
COMMON ORDER ON ADMISSION AND ON IA-1 IN C.C.NOS. 35/11 TO 38/11
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
C.C. No. 35/11 was filed by complainant Gyanchand Choudhari against opposite Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation Main Office, and Raichur office, U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act for to certain reliefs.
2. C.C. No. 36/11 and C.C. 38/11 are also filed by the same complainant Gyanchand Chowdhari, against same opposites, for the reliefs as noted in respective complaints.
3. C.C. No. 37/11 was filed by the complainant Pavankumar against the same opposites U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act for the reliefs as noted in his complaint.
4. IA.No-1 in C.C. No. 35/11 was filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of 14 years 28 days excluding prescribed period of two years, for the reasons stated in the affidavit annexed to this petition.
5. Similarly IA.No-1 36/11 was filed U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of 14 years 28 days. I.A. in CC 37/11 was filed U/sec. 24(A) (2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of 14 years 28 days and IA.No-1 in CC No. 38/11 was filed U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act, for to condone the delay of 14 years 28 days, for the reasons stated in the affidavit annexed to the respective petitions.
6. The above four complaints filed by respective complainants are on common grounds. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are one and the same in all the four complaints. The facts pleaded I.A. No-1 in all four petitions are on common facts in respect of single incident.
7. The complainants in all the four cases contended in I.A. No. 1 for to condone the delay of 14 years 28 days for the reasons that, the respective complainants waited for all these years to get settled their claims, but opposite No-2 wrote a letter on 24-01-08 by stating that, the case is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in between them and insurer bearing Civil Appeal No. 651/06 and claims will be settled after disposal of it Now it was dismissed on 11-05-09. Hence there was a delay.
8. The second ground urged in I.A.No-1 is that, the respective complainants came to know that, opposite is making payment to other sufferers in the said fire accident after disposal of Civil Appeal bearing No. 651/06 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but it is not settled their claim. Hence there was a delay of 14 years 28 days in filing respective this complaint and thereby, they prayed for to condone delay in filing their respective complaints.
9. In view of the facts stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the respective complainants in C.C. Nos. 35/11 to 38/11 have made out proper sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay of 14 years 28 days in filing their respective complaints as prayed in IA.No-1 in each complaint.
2. What order.
10. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
1) In Negative.
2) In view of our finding on Point NO-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
11. Complainant by name Gyanchand Chowdari in C.C. No. 35/11 is also a complainant in C.C. No. 36/11 and C. C .No. 38/11. C.C. No. 37/11 is the complainant by another person by name Pavankumar.
12. These complaints filed with regard to fire accident took place on 12-04-1995 in the godown of opposites at Raichur, in which each of them have deposited 25 bales of cotton, all cotton bales burnt in the fire accident. From the said facts it is a clear that, these complainants not filed within two years from the date of fire accident, as required U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act.
13. Now, these complaints filed with I.A. No-1 in their respective complaints to condone the delay of 14 years 28 days in filing their respective complaints, mainly on two grounds which are noted as under:
1. They waited all these years with a hope of settling their claim by opposite Nos. 1 & 2 and thereafter opposite No-2 wrote a letter on 24-01-08 as their case is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal bearing No. 651/06. Now, the said case was dismissed on 11-05-09.
2. The second ground as noted in their respective IA.No.1 is that, each of them came to know that, after disposal of Civil Appeal bearing No. 651/06 on 11-05-09, opposites started making payments to other sufferers of it, but they are not ready to pay any amount to them.
14. In the light of these facts, we have referred other two complaints filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 98/10 and C.C.No. 111/10 been filed by same Gyanchand Jain before this Forum on similar grounds in respect of the same fire accident dt. 12-04-1995. In the said two cases, also he filed I.A. No-1 U/o. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of 13 years 8 months and two days and 13 years 7 months and 4 days, on similar ground as noted in IA.No-1 in C.C. Nos. 35/11 to 38/11.
15. This Forum has passed consider order in C.C.No. 98/10 and C.C.No. 111/10 on 15-02-11 by holding that, both complaints were barred by limitation by rejecting the reasons noted in I.A.No.1, for to condone the delay.
16. We have already discussed and opined that, the cause of action for to file complaint with regard to fire accident dt. 12-04-1995 is arisen on 12-04-1995 and complaint has to be filed within two years, from the date of fire accident. Reason for delay not accepted and dismissed CC.No. 98/10 and CC 111/10 as time barred complaints. Admittedly present complaints bearing C.C.Nos. 35/11 to 38/11 have not filed within two years from 12-04-1995.
17. In earlier cases, complainant intended to take the benefit of a letter written by the opposites dt. 24-01-08, but that contention was rejected in clear terms, as it will not help to the complainant to condone the abnormal delay in filing complaint.
18. In earlier cases, complainant also intended to take the benefit of Civil Appeal bearing No. 651/06, as his complaints are within limitation period. That point was not considered by us by detail reasoning. In our vide order dt. 15-02-11 in C.C. No. 98/10 & 111/10. Delay not condoned and two complaints were dismissed as both of them are barred by limitation.
19. The complainant in C.C. No. 98/10 & 111/10, not challenged our order before the higher forum till today, as such our ordered dt. 15-02-11 remained unaltered.
20. Keeping in view of the above said facts, we have gone through the entire facts noted in I.A. No-1, in C.C. No. 35/11 to 38/11, wherein, each complainants wants to condone the delay of 14 years 28 days on the similar grounds which have been already rejected by us, in C.C. No. 98/10 & 111/10 vide ordered dt. 15-02-11, as such, we have no jurisdiction to reconsider the same order for to condone the abnormal delay caused in filing these complaints bearing Nos. 35/11 to 38/11. The disposal of Civil Appeal bearing No. 651/06 is no way related to dispute between the present complainant and opposites as it was a dispute in between the opposites and insurer. Complainants are not a parties in the said appeal. As such, this ground is also not proper and sufficient ground to condone the abnormal delay as prayed in I.A. No-1 of C.C. No. 35/11 to 38/11. Accordingly, we came to a conclusion that, all the four complaints bearing Nos. 35/11 to 38/11 are barred by limitation.
21. The learned advocate for complainant requested us to issue notices on the main complaint and also a notices on IA.No-1 to opposites. This submission is not proper and correct for the reasons as noted in aforesaid paras. On the prima faice, all these complaints are barred by limitation. Similar complaints bearing Nos. 98/10 & 111/10 were dismissed and our order dt. 15-02-11 was not challenged before any higher authorities as such, there is no meaning in issuing notices on the complaint and notices on I.A.No-1 to opposites in view of section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. Accordingly, the said submission of learned advocate for complainant in all the cases was rejected and we answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
22. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
IA-1 filed by the complainant in C.C. Nos. 35/11 to 38/11 are dismissed.
Consequently, complaint bearing C.C. Nos. 35/11to 38/11 are also dismissed as barred by limitation.
Keep the copy of this order in CC.No. 37/11 to 38/11.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-05-10)
Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur .
