SRI ASISH DEB , PRESIDENT,
Brief facts as averred in the complaint case are that being a trained person the complainant made a project for establishing an Ice Factory and for this purpose he made contact with the OP for supply of various iron materials and after a verbal contact he advanced a sum of Rs. 11,00000/-to the OP. Again on 20.02.2008 as per the earlier verbal contact the complainant gave advance of Rs. 3,02,000/- to the OP and the OP issued a receipt No. 357/07-08. Now it is the allegation of the complainant the Op did not supply the materials as per the said verbal contact. So, on 15.05.2010 the complainant tried for a settlement in the office of the OP along with some gentlemen of the locality. OP attended the settlement and assured the complainant that he would supply the materials within next three months or would refund the advanced amount to the complainant. But the OP did not keep his promise. Complainant thereafter sent a legal notice to the OP for refund of the money through an advocate. But the Op did not pay the same and remained silent for long ten years. Thereafter on 02.05.2018 the complainant met with the OP with the same claim but the OP denied to supply any materials to the complainant.
Hence the complainant has come before this Forum with this application U/Sec 12 of the C P Act and prays for a direction so that the OP returns Rs. 3,02,000/- to the complainant with due interest along with other prayers.
Upon notice, the OP appeared and he has contested this case by filing written version. The OP denied all the material allegations made in the complaint and contended inter alia that the case is got up case and there is no material in the allegations. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The specific defense of this O P is that he is an Ex-Indian Air force person and has established his SSI Unit and welding workshop as proprietor under the name and style Haldia Ex-Serviceman’s Engineering Works and is carrying on his said business with high dignity and honesty. The complainant placed an order for supply of a grill gate for his Electric shop at Haldia Hazra morh. At that time he made advance of Rs. 3,000/- for the said gate on 20.02.2008 and he was granted a receipt to that effect. The approximate date of delivery was 10.03.2008. Surprisingly after placement of the order and payment of the advance money, the complainant was not found in the locality and did not take delivery of the collapsible gate. The OP shifted his workshop to a nearby place and in doing so, many old papers including some counterparts of receipts and receipt books had been left behind in the debris. The complainant with the aid of his ld. advocate has manufactured the receipt filed in the record and is claiming the amount on the basis of the same. The complainant had no capacity to pay the vast amount as alleged at any point of time. The said receipt dated 20.02.2008 issued by the OP has been manipulated by the complainant in various ways to establish payment of higher amount of money.
In the above context the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost.
The points need to be considered here is (1) whether the complaint is barred by limitation, (2) whether the complainant is maintainable in it present form and prayer and whether (3) the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS.
All the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.
We have carefully gone through the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant in support of his case. Seen the questionnaires and reply thereto filed in record, the documents and heard the submission of the ld. Advocates for the parties.
Ld. advocate for the complainant has urged that the OP had practiced fraud and cheating by non delivery of goods despite receiving huge amount of money as advance, which caused him mental agony and pecuniary loss; it should be duly compensated. On the other hand, the Ld. advocate for the OP vehemently resisted and challenged the contention of the complainant. He has contended that on the face value of the complaint it is barred by limitation. The complainant has manufactured a false money receipt by way of interpolation and overwriting on it; thus he summits that the complaint should be dismissed.
It appears that the OP has taken mainly two fold defense , firstly the claim is time barred and secondly the complainant has forged a money receipt by way of interpellation of the figures on it. Now, the claim is time barred is good defense. Mere writing of letters without response would not extend limitation.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, a civil suit would have been filed within three years. A civil suit which is time barred cannot be agitated before Redressal Forum. As per para 8 of the complaint the complainant waited for ten years. First demand notice was given on 16.07.2010. Generally the limitation would be counted from the date of alleged transaction of money on 20.02.2008; even if we take the date of notice on 16.07.2010 the present claim has become time barred as the complainant has set the complaint on motion before this forum on 07.08.2018 i.e after 10 or 08 years. No reasonable explanation has been given by the complainant for justifying the delay. Since for such long years the complainant had acquiesced in it, he cannot now he allowed to agitate a stale claim. Hence, the claim is barred U/Sec 24 A of the C Pact, 1986.
Moreover, Annexure - A the crux of the dispute is a suspicious document; it bears interpolation, over writing, bearing no initial or signature of the OP on it. It justifies the defense taken by the OP. No other documents like bank Accounts etc. has been filed for establishing the facts of alleged payment by the complainant. As such, this complaint case is not maintainable and also it is without any merit and deserves dismissal
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the CC No. 330/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any order of cost.
Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
