Delhi

South Delhi

CC/212/2024

SATBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

SOURABH GUPTA ADV

07 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II UDYOG SADAN C 22 23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
 
Complaint Case No. CC/212/2024
( Date of Filing : 08 Jul 2024 )
 
1. SATBIR SINGH
719 J GAUSHALA ROAD NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI
SOUTH WEST
DELHI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. RANA MOTORS
A 2 /7 SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI
SOUTH
DELHI
2. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED
OLD PALAM GURGAON ROAD GURUGRAM HARYANA
GURUGRAM
HARYANA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. MONIKA A. SRIVASTAVA PRESIDENT
  KIRAN KAUSHAL MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 07 Oct 2024
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.2012/2024

 

Shri Satbir Singh

S/o Shri Phool Singh

R/o 719-J, Gaonshala Road

Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.                                    .…Complainant

                                                        VERSUS

 

Rana Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Showroom: A-2/7 Safdarjung Enclave

Opp. Bhikaji Cama Place

New Delhi-110029.

 

Maruti Suzuki India Limited

Old Palam Gurgaon Road

Haryana-122015.                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

 

Present:    Adv. Abhay Raj Verma for complainant.

 

ORDER

 

Date of Institution:05.08.2024

Date of Order       :07.10.2024

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

 

  1. Complainant’s states that on 10.07.2024 when he purchased a new Maruti Suzuki Swift LXI from the OP 1 by exchanging his old Maruti 800 MPI standard White colour model 2005 which was registered in the name of the complainant.  Part consideration towards the purchase of the new car came from the exchange of the old car of the complainant.  It is further stated that the said Maruti 800 had a valid insurance when it was handed over to the OP.  Copy of the delivery receipt is annexure C-1, copy of the order booking is annexure C-2 and copy of the receipt payment of Rs.20,400/- is annexure C-3.

 

  1. It is stated that at that time OP 1 had given an undertaking signed by them that they will be responsible for any maintenance, accidents, road taxes, police challans and offences, its misuse of any kind after taking the delivery.

 

  1. It was further assured to the complainant that the OP would get the registration change of name of prospective owner and would also get the insurance renewed and the sale made to the prospective buyers.  In this regard, OP-1 got a form signed from the complainant at the time of handing over of the vehicle.

 

  1. In 2018 complainant received a notice from the District Court, Kinnaur, Rampur, Bushahr, District Shimla, HP that the old car of the complainant had met with an accident and the case is registered against the complainant as it was still registered in the name of the complainant.  It is the case of the complainant that OP-1 had not got his name changed as registered owner as was promised by him on 10.07.2014.  Complainant complained to OP-2 about the misconduct of OP-1 but no action has been taken by the OP-2.  Copy of the complaint dated 16.10.2019 is annexed as annexure C-4.

 

  1. Complainant states that he had no concern about the said incident was falsely impleaded due to the negligence and deficiency in service and irresponsible conduct of OP-1 and 2.  On 05.01.2024 Judge MACT, Kinnaur passed an award of Rs.11,10,052/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 08.08.2016 till realisation and the complainant is liable to pay 50% of the said amount on account of deficiency in service and negligence of service on account of OP-1 and 2.  The award of the Ld. Judge MACT is annexed as annexure C-5.  In this regard an appeal has also been filed by the complainant which is pending before the High Court of Shimla.

 

  1. It is the case of the complainant that OP-1 was duty bound to change the name of the registered owner, after the vehicle was handed over by the complainant to fulfil his duty in terms of the delivery receipt issued by OP-1.

 

  1. Before we go into the merits of the case it is important to understand whether the complaint is filed within time.  In this regard section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019……

 

  1. The limitation period as prescribed by Section 69 under the 2019 Act corresponding with section 24A of the old CPA, for admission of a complaint by the consumer forum:

 Limitation period - (1) The District Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

  1. From the aforesaid provision, it is imperative that this Commission should examine, before the admission of the Complaint, that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.

 

  1. As has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission in Gian Gupta vs DDA CC No. 155/2010 decided on 16.08.2021 “The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the Complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality.”

 

  1. In this case it is seen that the first cause of action arose in 2014 when the car was exchanged by the complainant and thereafter in 2018 when he received a notice from the Hon’ble  MACT, Kinnaur thereafter in 2019 when he made a complaint of OP-1 to OP-2. The Complainants have not provided any document which would help this Commission in arriving at a finding that the complaint is filed within time.

 

  1.  In the considered view of this Commission since the complainant was aware of the proceedings of the Hon’ble MACT since 2018 yet he has filed the complaint in 2024, the case is belatedly time barred and is therefore dismissed in limine.

 

  Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MONIKA A. SRIVASTAVA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ KIRAN KAUSHAL]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.