Haryana

Kurukshetra

250/2016

Dharampal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rishi Ram Transport - Opp.Party(s)

Krishan Kumar

07 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                        Complaint Case No.250 of 2016.

                                                        Date of instt.06.09.2016

                                                        Date of Order: 07.02.2019.

Dharam Pal son of Inder Ram, resident of village Chhallon, Post Office Bagthala, Near Harijan Chopal, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. 

       

                                                                        …….complainant

                          Vs.

1.  The Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, 101-105, 1^st Floor, B Wingh, Shiv Chambers, Sector-11, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
2. The Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        ….OPs.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:      Sh. Jagdish Chand, Adv. for complainant.

                 Sh. Harpal Mandhan, Adv. for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Dharampal against Shri Ram Transport and Finance Company and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant obtained a loan from the OPs for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- on 31.8.2010 for the purchase for tractor for tenure 31 months and first due date was 31.8.2010 and last due date as 5.3.2013.  The annual installment for payment of loan was Rs.15,000/- per month.  The complainant paid all the due installments to the Ops and it was on 4.7.2012 when a Panchayat was held to adjust the final payment of loan of Rs.10,000/- which were paid by the complainant to the OPs and it was settled that nothing was due against the complainant. The complainant requested the Ops many a times for N.O.C. but the Ops remained reluctant and till paid, no NOC has been given by the Ops to the complainant. Now after passing more than four years, the Ops have demanded unilaterally illegal arrear with fine, penalty with interest. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops not to take forcible possession of the vehicle, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that as per Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and only the Arbitrator is competent to decide the matter in dispute; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The real and true facts are that the answering OPs are financer of the said vehicle and there is an agreement between the parties that if any dispute is arisen, the matter will be sent to the Arbitrator. Moreover, the complainant is not paying the installments as per agreement, so question of issuance of NOC does not arise. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on perusal of record, it is clear that the complainant obtained loan from the Ops amounting to Rs.2,75,000/- on 31.08.2010 for purchase of tractor for tenure of 31 months and first due date was 31.08.2010 and last due date was 05.03.2013.  According to the complainant, he paid each and every installment on due date and on 04.07.2012 a Panchayat was held to adjust the final payment of the loan for Rs.10,000/-.  But the Ops placed on file document Ex.R1 from which it is clear that the total due amount against the complainant was Rs.272258.08 paise upto 17.10.2016.  Without going into any other controversy, we decide the complaint on the point of maintainability.  The cause of action arose to the complainant on 04.07.2012, whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 06.09.2017 i.e. after the period of more than 4 years.  Neither the application for condonation of delay nor any explanation regarding the same has been given by the complainant.  Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is relevant regarding the limitation which runs 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 complaint 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”.

Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is time-barred and the same is not maintainable.  So, we dismiss the present complaint as the same is barred by limitation.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:07.02.2019.

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.