BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Dr Justice S. TAMILVANAN                PRESIDENT

Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                       MEMBER

F.A.NO.385/2014

(Against order in C.C.Sr.NO.531/2014 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

DATED THIS THE 24^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 

Dr. C.V.Kavitha Abirami

D/o. C. Venkatesan

No.3/55/51, DR.Subbarayan Nagar                           M/s. Govi Ganesan

Mettur Dam                                                                  Counsel for

Salem – 636 401                                             Appellant / Complainant

                  Vs.

1.       M/s. Volkswagen Group

          Sales India Pvt. Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

          “Silver Utopia”, 3^rd & 4^th Floor

          Cardinal Gracious Road

          Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 051

2.       M/s. Volkswagen Group

          Sales India Pvt. Ltd.,

          No.3, North Avenue, Land ³/₄

          Maker Marity, Bandra Kurla Complex                 M/s. A.R. Ramanathan

          Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051                          Counsel for R1 and R2

3.       M/s. Ramani Cars Pvt. Ltd.,

          Rep. by its authorized signatory

          No.54/1, Mettupalayam Road

          Kavundampalayam, Coimbatore-641 030

4.       M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          Rep. by its authorised signatory                         M/s. E.K.Kumaresan

          G.E.Plaza, Airport Road                                          Counsel for

          Yerawada, Pune – 411 007                      Respondent/ Opposite parties

The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum   dismissed the unnumbered complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.16.10.2014 in CCSr. No.531/2014.

          This petition coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and 1^st and 2^nd Respondents, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:

Dr. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

1.       This appeal has been preferred by the complainant, as against the order passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore in unnumbered CCSr.No.531/2014, in rejecting the complaint, which is a consequential order.  While filing the above complaint, since there was a delay of 245 days, for condoning the same, a petition has been filed in CMP.No.1278/2014, which was dismissed, consequentially the CCSR also rejected. 

2.       On going through the affidavit filed by the appellant/complainant, the reason adduced by the complainant for the delay is “ In my official capacity I had to make frequent visits to places like Delhi and several other places and most of the time I was away.  Therefore, I could not file my complaint within the stipulated time”. 

3.       As per the complaint it is stated that the complainant has purchased a car bearing Registration No.TN-52-W-0285, manufactured by the Volkswagen Company, from the 3^rd opposite party / dealer on 19.1.2012.  While it was so, the car met with an accident on 1.11.2013.  The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident had occurred only due to the default in the vehicle. 

4.       The District Forum, after considering the submissions made by the appellant/complainant, and on perusing the affidavit filed in support of the petition, has come to a conclusion that the reasons adduced for the delay in filing complaint is not acceptable, and thus dismissed the said petition. 

5.       As per Sec.24A of Consumer protection Act the period of limitation for filing a complaint is clearly stated as any complaint should be filed within two years from the date of last cause of action.  It is an admitted fact, that this complaint is filed after exorbitant delay of 245 days.  As rightly stated by the District Forum, for applying the discretion for condoning the delay, the reason adduced for the delay of 245 days is not acceptable.  On considering the rapid development of technology, it cannot be accepted that due to non-availability of the complainant in station, the complaint could not be filed in time. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the reason adduced for the inordinate delay of 245 days is not acceptable, and thus we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum which needs interference. 

6.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming of the order of the District Forum in CCSr.No.531/2014 dt.16.10.2014.  There will be no order as to cost.

          P. BAKIYAVATHI                              S. TAMILVANAN

                  MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT

INDEX : YES / NO

Rsh/d/STVJ/ Open court