(Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member)
(1) This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 28/02/2003 in Consumer Complaint No.103/00.
(2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
The complainant is a co-operative bank and the complaint was filed by the Manager on behalf of the bank. The complainant had purchased automatic telephone system from the opponents for a price of `40,470/- on 25/02/1995 and executed the maintenance agreement with the opponents which was valid for the period of 11/2 year. On 27/06/1998, the complainant noticed fault in the system and the complainant informed the same to the opponents, however opponent has not taken a corrective action. However, the opponents promised to provide wireless system to the complainant free of cost. However, despite of communications, they have not provided alternate system as promised. The complainant claimed this as deficiency in service and accordingly filed consumer complaint praying that either the opponent should repair the existing system or to provide new system or pay back the amount of `44,517 with interest of 18% p.a. and cost of `10,000/- and compensation of `10,000/-.
(3) The opponents remained absent though duly served and hence district forum proceeded ex-parte in the complaint. The district forum observed that the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant is doing banking business. Similarly, the district forum observed that the complaint is not within limitation because the cause of action had occurred on 01/07/1997 or 14/07/1997 and the complaint is filed on 20/06/2000. Observing this, the district forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order. The present appeal is filed against the impugned order.
(4) The matter was on sine-die list. The matter was placed before us on 14/07/2011. We directed the office to issue intimations to both the parties. Accordingly, intimations are issued fixing the date of hearing on 18/11/2011. Today, both the parties remained absent. Since this is an old matter, we proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
(5) Prima-facie, there is a delay of 81 days in filing this appeal. For condonation of delay, the appellant has filed Misc.Application No.2096/03 which is duly affirmed, but there is no supporting affidavit. The delay is of 81 days. We have gone through the order passed by the District Forum. The complaint filed before the district forum is not within the time. There is a delay in filing the consumer complaint. No doubt, we do not agree with the observations of the district forum that the complainant is not a consumer as the complaint is a bank and doing the commercial activity because the complaint is filed on 20/06/2000 and at the relevant time there was no such provision relied by the district forum. However, the complaint itself was not filed within limitation. Further, there is a delay in filing the appeal which is not properly explained. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and hence we pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) The delay condonation application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal does not survive for consideration. Even on merit also we do not find any substance.
(2) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 18th November, 2011.
