DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

M/s Hind Motors (India) Limited, Plot No.15, Industrial Area,Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its authorized attorney Sh.R.P.Singh, Assistant Manager (Legal).

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

Mukesh Sharma, Heem Industries, SCO No.179-180, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh – 160 017

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:      Sh.R.P.Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh.Gagan Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant

OP exparte.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as OP for short) on the ground that on being approached by the OP with the quotation bearing Ref.No.HI/683, dated 05.05.2007 and after a personal discussion regarding installation of “Close Circuit Camera System” complete in all respects at Plot NO.B-16, Indl.Area, Phase-II, Mohali. The same is Ann.C-2.

                The CC accepted the quotation given by the OP and issued a cheque bearing No.095128, dated 25.5.2007 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards advance payment for starting the work and instructed the OP to install the “Close Circuit Camera System”.  The said agreement was executed at the premises of the CC in Chandigarh and the payment too was made at their place only. 

                It is alleged that the OP failed to start the work and complete the same as per the written work contract dated 28.6.2007 for the installation of Close Circuit Cameras, which was valued at Rs.1,51,750/-.  The advance payment of 25% of the work contract was paid and the 50% of the amount was to be paid after the receipt of material at the site and remaining 25% was to be released after completion of job and testing etc.  Thereafter, the CC issued another cheque bearing No.107833, dated 04.8.2007 for Rs.15,000/- forwarded by Purchase Order dated 06.08.2007 of Rs.32,250/-.  The copies of the letter dated 03.8.2007 and Purchase order dated 06.8.2007 are Ann.C-5 & C-6. 

                The CC has pointed out that OP has failed to respect the terms & conditions of the agreement which was to be executed within a specified time frame.  The breach of the terms & conditions of the agreement on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  The OP was served with the legal notice dated 31.3.2010 Ann.C-7 with receipt of dispatch Ann.C-8. 

                The CC has prayed for seeking directions asking OP to complete the job work as per agreement or refund the amount already paid i.e. Rs.45,000/- along with interest @18% p.a.. CC has also demanded Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  

2]             On notice, OP could not be served as the notice sent through Process Server returned with the comment that the office is lying shut for many days as conveyed by the neighbourer. 

                Thereafter, the OP was served through publication in local vernacular (Chardikala) but even then it failed to respond and hence was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.08.2011.

3]             Complainant has led its evidence. 

4]             Having gone through the entire complaint and evidence at hand, we are of the considered view that the present complaint, for which the cause of action arose by the act of OP, who was suppose to honour the agreement as executed on 28.06.2007 (Ann.C-3).

                As the OP has remained exparte, all the contentions of the complaint go unrebutted.

5]             It is important to visit the Agreement Ann.C-3 executed between the parties on 28.6.2007 wherein under the Terms & Conditions, Clause-1 titled Completion, it is clearly mentioned “The work will be completed by 10^th July, 2007.”

6]             We feel that the actual cause of action against the OP arose on 10.7.2007 when the work that was to be completed, was not completed by the OP. 

                We also feel that legal notice served upon the OP, dated 31.3.2010 will not, in any way, create the cause of action to enable the CC to file the present complaint, when the actual cause of action had already accrued on 4.8.2007, when Rs.15,000/- was released to the OP, even though the work was to be completed by 10^th July, 2007, as per the agreement. 

7]             It is also important to note that the last payment of Rs.15,000/- is made through cheque bearing No.107833, dated 4.8.2007.  Even if this date is considered as the extended period of execution of work, we find that the present complaint is time barred due to limitation of two years as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date). 

8]             The CC has failed to bring on record any material document, which could prove that the OP had agreed to an extended period beyond the date of agreement (Ann.C-3) to complete the work.  The date of institution of the present complaint is 15^th June, 2010 and the same was received at the Registry on 11.6.2010, we feel it attracts provisions of Section 24-A of Limitation Period of C.P.Act, 1986. 

9]             Hence, in view of the above observations, we dismiss the complaint being barred by limitation.  There is order as to cost.

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the CC, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23.09.2011                                                                                                                                 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER