DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 571/2015
Date of Institution : 15.09.2015
Date of Decision : 22.04.2016
1. Satnam Singh aged about 30 years son of Sh. Mahender Singh.
2. Mahender Singh s/o Fateh Singh r/o Village Daraka, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainants
Versus
Panesar Agriculture Industries, Bathinda Road, Opposite Power House, Near Handiaya Chowk, Barnala District Barnala through its Proprietor Jagmeet Singh.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. SK Kotia counsel for the complainant
Sh. KR Goel counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (in short as Act) against Panesar Agriculture Industries (in short as opposite party).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainants purchased a harvester combine Panesar HC 514 having chassis No. C12X77 and Engine No. FVE377380 for Rs. 15,60,000/- vide bill No. 563 dated 22.3.2012 from the opposite party. It is further averred that Rs. 13,00,000/- was paid by way of loan got sanctioned from PADB Bank, Tapa. It is further averred that for payment of remaining amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-, an old tractor of the complainants was got sold to the opposite party in consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- and as such an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was outstanding towards the opposite party. The opposite party further got insured the above mentioned combine in consideration of Rs. 21,555/- which was also deducted from Rs. 1,40,000/-. Thus, it is alleged that the entire payment of combine of Rs. 15,60,000/- has been duly made to the opposite party and an amount of Rs. 1,18,445/- is still outstanding against the opposite party.
3. It is alleged that two threshers (one thresher for wheat and one thresher for paddy) was to be supplied with the combine out of which only one thresher was given. It is also alleged that only a photocopy of bill was supplied on the excuse that the RC will be supplied through the opposite party. Even, original insurance has not been supplied and only photocopy was supplied. It is further alleged that the complainants approached the opposite party for the balance amount and for knowing the status of RC. However, the opposite party was bent upon to take the signatures on blank papers. Then a Civil Suit No. 11 of 10.1.2013 was filed by the complainants and at the last stage the same was withdrawn on 10.7.2015 as the opposite party verbally promised to deliver the original bill and balance payment. It is further alleged that the complainants failed to apply for RC as the original bill and other documents are within the custody of the opposite party and lastly the opposite party refused to deliver the original bill. Hence present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs directing the opposite party.-
1) To hand over the original bill No. 563 dated 22.3.2012 or in the alternative to hand over the RC of the combine.
2) To make payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for pecuniary loss to the complainants and physical harassment
3) To compensate Rs. 20,000/- for engaging the counsel and paying the costs.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed the written reply taking the preliminary objections on the ground that the complainants has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. Secondly, the complaint is not maintainable. Thirdly, the complicated questions of facts and law are involved and the controversies cannot be resolved in a summary procedure. Fourthly, the complaint is not within the period of limitation and present complaint is false and frivolous.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainants purchased the harvester combine for Rs. 15,60,000/- and paid Rs. 13,00,000/- by way of loan from PADB Bank, Tapa. However, they have denied the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,40,000/-. They have also denied that the opposite party got the combine insured for Rs. 21,555/-, rather the complainants got the combine insured at their own. It is further averred that the opposite party has no authority to get the registration certificate prepared. It is also averred that the original bill was not give to the complainants, the bank would not have sanctioned the loan without original bill. It is further averred that, the documents are with the bank which sanctioned the loan. The opposite party has also denied that they had no occasion to take signatures of the complainants on blank papers and no document is in the custody of the opposite party. They have also denied that the complainants ever approached the opposite party on 1.8.2015 to take the above said documents. It is finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove their case, complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit of Mahender Singh Ex.C-1, photocopy of bill Ex.C-2, photocopy of statement Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainants the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jagmeet Singh Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
9. At the outset the learned counsel for the opposite party has taken a specific objection that the complaint is not within the limitation as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He submitted that the combine in question was purchased on 22.3.2012 and therefore the cause of action accrued on 22.3.2012 but the present complaint is filed on 15.9.2015, which is hopelessly time barred.
10. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased the harvester combine vide bill No. 563 on 22.3.2012 for consideration of Rs. 15,60,000/- from the opposite party. It is also stated by the complainant that the machine was insured for Rs. 21,555/- and entire payment of the combine was made to the opposite party. It is also mentioned in para No. 4 of the complaint by the complainant that only a photocopy of the bill was supplied.
11. It is also the case of the complainant that the original bill and documents are within the custody of the opposite parties, therefore, he failed to apply for RC at their own account. On 1.8.2015 he again approached the opposite party to take the original bill and balance amount for applying for RC. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that when the opposite party refused to deliver the original bill/RC, then the present complaint is filed.
12. The justification as given by the complainant is not tenable. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under.-
“24-A. Limitation period.- (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub- section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
13. A perusal of the ibid section shows that the complaint can be filed within two years from the cause of action. Even, the complainant have not pleaded in the complaint that the complaint is within limitation. Even, no sufficient reasons have been mentioned in the complaint for entertaining the same.
14. As a result of above discussion there is merit in the contention of the opposite party. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed as the same is not filed within limitation. However no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
22nd Day of April 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
