ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 891 of 2009

1- Garg Goods Carrier, Branch Baraut,

    Tehsil, Baraut, District Baghpat through

    Partner Lokesh Garg.

2- Garg Goods Carrier, 42, Kumar Building,

    Nai Basti, Ghaziabad through Partner

    Lokesh Garg.                                               ...Appellants.

Versus

Saurabh Agencies, Gandhi Road, Baraut,

Baghpat through Proprietor, Indu Jain.       .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Dr. Abha Gupta, Member.

Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Sri V.S. Bisaria, Advocate for the respondent.

Date 2.3.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member- This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25.6.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Meerut in complaint case no.383 of 2007, Saurabh Agencies vs. Garg Goods Carrier & anr., whereby allowing the complaint  the appellants are directed to pay Rs.36,205.00 alongwith interest @12% p.a.

Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that cause of action was arisen in the year 2003 whereas the complaint is filed on 11.9.2007 which is time barred and could have not been entertained by the ld. District Forum, Meerut.

Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that non-delivery of goods is established. There was the possibility of settlement between the parties, therefore, some time was consumed by the parties in discussing regarding settlement of dispute.

   Upon hearing the ld. Counsel for the complainant and on perusal of the judgment this fact is established that goods was entrusted to the opposite parties for delivery at

(2)

Ghaziabad on 31.10.2003. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties if the goods were not delivered to the consignee, this  fact must be informed to the appellants within 45 days but there is no evidence to consider this point that whether the complainant submitted any information regarding non-delivery of consignment to the opposite parties/appellants. There is no other document which may suggests that there was any occasion to settle the dispute amicably between the parties. As per the provisions of section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, no District Forum or State Commission shall entertain the complaint filed beyond two years from the date of cause of action. This complaint certainly has been filed beyond prescribed period, hence, was not to be entertained by the ld. District Forum being time barred. The ld. District Forum apparently committed mistake by entertaining/disposing the time barred complaint. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 

ORDER

          Appeal is allowed.  The judgment and order dated 25.6.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Meerut in complaint case no.383 of 2007 is set aside.

          The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

(3)

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

           (Dr. Abha Gupta)                        (Sushil Kumar)

                  Member                              Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

            (Dr. Abha Gupta)                        (Sushil Kumar)

                  Member                              Presiding Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 2