Haryana

Ambala

CC/183/2021

Flt Lt K.K.Chandhok - Complainant(s)

Versus

RTO - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaintcase no.	:	183 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	04.06.2021
Date of decision	:	10.11.2022

 Flt Lt. K K Chandhok S/O Shri Behari Lal Chandhok R/O 348, Model Town, Ambala City (Haryana)

VERSUS

          ……. Complainant

Registration Authority (MV), RTO, Ambala City

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Party

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                     None for the OP.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

          (i) To issue the extended RC.

                                       OR

          Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that complainant is the owner of the Maruti 800 car having Registration Number HR0IN 7654. The car is registered with RTO, Ambala City. The car model is of 2003 and the initial registration of the car was upto 05.01.2018. The requisite application for extending the validity of Registration for 5 years was made on 28.12.2017 and all required documents were attached including the original RC. In the 3^rd week of January, 2018, RC of the car was received through registered post but the RC issued was duplicate RC instead of extended RC. The complainant having full confidence on RTO, did not notice that the RC issued was "DUPLICATE RC" rather than "EXTENDED RC". Now, the complainant approached the RTO office, which is demanding fine of Rs.500/- per month from January, 2018 onwards, amounting to Rs.19000/-. The complainant explained the RTO authorities that the application was submitted on 28.12.2017 for the issuance of extended RC and not for Duplicate RC, hence, the fine must be waived off and instead new extended RC to be issued but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, barred by limitation, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and locus standi etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the complainant applied for duplicate RC Vide receipt No.RIR171200001003 dated 28th December 2017 and the same was issued by RTO office Ambala City and received by complainant in 3^rd week of January 2018. Duplicate RC was issued to complainant after complying due process of law and submission of fee of duplicate RC by the complainant. The complainant approached RTO office to get the extended RC be issued in his name after elapse of 3 years and 2 months from the date of expiry of RC i.e. 6th Jan 2018. So the total fine that the complainant need to deposit to issue extended RC in his name comes out to be Rs.19000/-. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence. Evidence of the OP was closed by this Commission vide order dated 04.10.2022 because despite giving it number of opportunities it failed to do so. 
5.           We have heard the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.
6.           In the written version, OP has categorically raised the objection that the present complaint is barred by limitation.  Before going into the merits of this case, we will like to first consider as to whether, this  complaint is filed within the period of limitation or not. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides for a limitation period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen for filing a complaint before the Consumer Commission.   Complainant has pleaded that he moved an application on 28.12.2017 for issuance of extended RC and in January 2018, duplicate RC instead of extended RC was sent by the OP. Thus, the cause of action, if any, arose in favour of the complainant to file this complaint, was latest by third week of January 2020.  If the period of two years is counted from third week of January 2018, this complaint having been filed on 04.06.2021 is hopelessly time barred.
7.           At the same time it is also held that mere sending of letter dated 10.03.2021, Annexure C-5 by the complainant to the OP for redressal of his grievance,  will not extend the period of limitation, in the face of settled principle of law which says that the law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of  representations and if a person goes on making representations for years, in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided. Our this view is supported by the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors., reported at (2014) 6 SCC 460 wherein it was held as under:-

"…..10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided. ........"

 

8.           In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since it has been held above that this complaint is barred by limitation, as such, in our considered opinion, even then if we proceed further on merits of this case, it would be nothing but commission of an illegality on the part of this Commission. Our this view is supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank Of India vs M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2067 of 2002, decided 20 March, 2009,    wherein it was held as under:-          
   • If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside……”

9.                 For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands dismissed being barred by limitation, with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be annexed and consigned to the record room.                  

Announced on: 10.11.2022.

 

 

 

                   (Ruby Sharma)                                  (Neena Sandhu)

                    Member                                                      President