Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/13/947

ssri. T. Munivenkataswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Tvs Motors Company Ltd & Other - Opp.Party(s)

Shobha S. G.

29 Dec 2017

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 15.05.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 29.12.2017

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.947/2013

DATED THIS THE 29^th DECEMBER OF 2017

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.T.Munivenkataswamy

S/o Dr.M.Raghunandana, Major,

R/at no.898, 8^th cross,

Alankar building, Muneshwaranagara,

Ullal main road,

Bengaluru-56.

 

By Adv.Smt.Shobha.S.G     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. M/s.TVS Motors Co., ltd.,

S-2A, Manchester square, no.12/6, Puliyakulam road, Coimbatur-641037,

Tamilnadu

 

2. M/s.TVS Motors Co., ltd.,

Gnana Bharathi main road, Teachers colony,

Chandra layout extension, Bengaluru-56.

 

By Advocates

M/s.Pragathi Law Chambers

 

3. B.Viswanathaiah & Company, Authorized dealer

for TVS-50 Moped,

Arunagiri Complex,

Bypass road,

Hosur-635109,

Dharmapuri District.

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties no.1 to 3 (herein after referred as Op.no.1, 2 & 3 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs by way of damages on account of the Ops having failed to deliver the moped after receiving the initial deposit and making the Complainant run from post to pillar and for mental agony.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that he wanted to buy a TVS moped-50 (herein after referred as the said moped) from the Op.no.3 and approached, who being the authorized dealer of the Op.no.1 & 2, valued at Rs.4,500/-. Accordingly, as demanded by Ops, he paid the initial deposit of Rs.250/- on 23.12.1981 itself vide receipt bearing no.1796. In this context, the Ops issued vehicle order agreeing to deliver the moped within the time agreed. Here after by one or the other pretext postponed the delivery of the said moped. Hence there is deficiency of service. In this context, he also issued legal notice dtd.12.04.2013 for demanding the damage of Rs.5 lakhs. Though the notice were served on Op.no.1 & 2, they did not reply. However, notice sent to Op.no.3 returned unserved. To the notice, the Ops never replied. The cause of action for the complaint arose on 21.12.1981, when he booked the moped, thereafter on 12.04.2013 when the notice has been issued.  Hence this complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op.no.1 & 2 did appear before this forum. Though notice served on Op.no.3, he did not appear.  Amongst them Op.no1 & 2 filed the version denying the contents of the complaint filed by the Complainant much less the deficiency of service if any. The main objections raised by the Ops are that the Complainant not at all be a consumer. The complaint filed by the Complainant is hopelessly barred by time. Further the contention taken by the Ops that, this forum has no any jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint, as the CP Act was came in to force on 15.04.1987 and the alleged cause of action for the complainant to file this instant complaint was in the year 1981-82. Since the complaint which relates to an event which occurred prior coming into force of CP Act. Hence, the only remedy is left open to the Complainant to approach the civil court to get redress his remedy. On these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. It appears that on 05.06.2013, the Complainant has filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, to which the Ops have not filed any objections. Thereafter on 12.08.2013, the Op.no.1 & 2 filed an application u/s 26 of the CP Act to dismiss the complaint as frivolous, to which the Complainant has filed objections on 23.10.2013. Ongoing through the entire order sheet, no order has been passed on these 2 applications. It appears that these applications are to be dealt along with the main petition.

         

          5. To substantiate the case, the Complainant and the Ops not filed affidavit evidence and also not filed written arguments. Complainant produced Ex-A1 to A3 documents and Op.no.1 & 2 produced Ex-B1 to B4 documents. Heard.

  

6. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the application filed by Complainant u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is to be allowed ?
2. Whether the application filed by Op.no.1 & 2 u/s 26 of CP Act is to be allowed ?
3. Whether the complaint filed by the Complainant is barred by limitation ?
4. Whether the complaint filed by the Complainant is maintainable ?
5. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
6. What order ?

                   

           

 

7.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative

Point no.2: Does not survive for consideration   

Point no.3: In the Affirmative

Point no.4: In the Negative.  

Point no.5: Does not survive for consideration

Point no.6: As per the final order for the following

 

 

 

 

REASONS

 

          8. Point no.1 to 4: Since these points are interconnected, hence we have taken these 4 points together for our discussion just to avoid the repetition of the facts.

 

          9. The very pleading of the Complainant goes to show that, he was ordered to book the TVS moped in the year 1981 itself. By that time, the CP Act was not come in to force. When such being the fact, the only option was left open to the Complainant is to knock the door of the civil court to get redress his remedy. In this context, the contention taken by the Ops is acceptable. With regard to the deficiency of service is concerned, there is no evidence on record to support the version of the Complainant.

 

          10. After filing the complaint, Complainant filed an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay. We have gone through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the said application. The reasons assigned are sub-silent to condone the delay, as per the version of the Complainant, the cause of action was arose on 23.12.1981. In this context, the learned counsel for the Ops draw our attention to the reported decisions:

 (1) 2009 7 SCC 768 in the case of Kandimalla Raghaviah and Co. Vs National Insurance co. and Anr.

(2) (2006) 1 SCC 164 in the case of Haryana Urban development authority Vs B.K.Sood

(3) AIR 1954 Bom 537 in the case of Sitaram Ramcharan and Ors Vs M.N.Nagrashna and Anr

(4) 2003 (1) ShimLC 25 in the case of Bariam Singh Vs Agya Ram and Ors

 

          11. With reference to the said decisions, submit to dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation. We have placed reliance on the said decisions. The said decisions are marked as Ex-B1 to B4. Amongst them Ex-B1 & B2 are with reference to Sec.24A of CP Act, Ex-B3 is with regard to the belated application and condonation of delay under the Industrial Dispute Act and Ex-B4 is with regard to the Sec.5 of Limitation Act.

 

          12. The spirit of Sec.24A of CP Act is, if there are adequate reasons, either Hon’ble National Commission, Hon’ble State Commission or District Forums, as the case may be, condone the delay by recording the reasons. In the instant case, we do not find any adequate reasons to condone the delay as the complaint is filed after a long lapse of about 33 years. Hence we are of the opinion that, the application filed by the Complainant u/s 5 of Limitation Act is deserves to be dismissed.

 

          13. With regard to the application filed by Op.no.1 & 2 u/s 26 of CP Act is concerned, which does not needs to be discussed in detail as the said application becomes infructuous in view of taking the matter for final adjudication by this forum. Hence we come to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the Complainant is barred by time. Accordingly we answered the points no.1 to 4.

 

           14. Point no.5: In view of our findings on point no.1 to 4, this issue does not survive for consideration. Accordingly it is answered.

 

 15. Point no.6: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed devoid of any merits, so also the application filed by the Complainant u/s 5 of limitation act and also the application filed by the Op.no.1 & 2 u/s 26 of CP Act also stands dismissed.

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we directed both the parties to bear their own cost.   

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer and pronounced in the Open Forum on 29^th December of 2017).

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

-NIL- 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Receipt dtd.23.12.1981
Ex-A2	Legal notice dtd.12.04.2013
Ex-A3	Postal acknowledgements

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

-NIL-

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party no.1 & 2

 

Ex-B1 to B4

Citations

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT