Haryana

StateCommission

A/545/2022

SHIV NARAIN YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

05 Dec 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.545 of 2022

                   Date of Institution:07.10.2022

Date of Decision:05.12.2024

 

Shiv Narain Yadav S/o Sh.Ram Karan Yadav, Village & P.O. Sultanpur, Block & Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram, Haryana, 122506

..…Appellant

Versus

 

Shri Pawan Kumar, Proprietor: Sarvotam Tractors, Ram Gopal Chowk, Mahendergarh Road, Rewari, District Rewari, Haryana 123401.

..…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President

Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Appellant-Shiv Narain Yadav in person.

Respondent already proceeded against ex parte.

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Appellant-complainant-Shiv Narain Yadav,has filed the instant appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for challenging the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram, whereby complaint filed by complainant-Shiv Narain Yadavwas dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that on 22/23.03.2017, the complainant purchased a tractor mounted reaper binder (TYMRB) Crop Harvesting Machine, manufactured by B.C.S. India Private Limited Company from opposite party for total consideration of Rs.2,99,800/- including accessories.  The above said tractor suffered from technical defects and was not up to the standard as was assured by the OP. On the next day of purchase, he requested the OP to refund the amount of tractor but OP failed to do so. Faced with this situation, he wrote several letters to the OP vide dated 16.06.2017, 19.07.2017 (reminder) and 17.08.2017 ( letter to Chief Minister Haryana). However, the OP issued a cheque of Rs.2,40,000/- bearing No. 374064 dated 16.03.2018. The complainant requested the OP to pay balance amount of Rs.59,800/-, but to of no avail. Faced with this situation, he issued notice dated 20.04.2020, but to of no avail. Thus there was deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

3.      After hearing appellant in person, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 02.08.2022 as time barred.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appealseeking setting aside of the impugned order and complaint as well as appeal be allowed.

5.      We have heard appellant in person. With hiskind assistance the entire record of appeal alongwith documents werethoroughly perused andexamined.

6.      Appellant-Shiv Narain Yadav has urged that impugned order dated 02.08.2022is erroneous on all fronts. Legal and factual aspects have not been analyzed in proper perspective. Appellant in person argued that an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was paid by the OP instead of Rs.2,99,800/-. The appellant was entitled to Rs.59,800/- alongwith interest as prayed for.

7.      It is not disputed that 22/23.03.2017, the complainant purchased a tractor mounted reaper binder (TYMRB) Crop Harvesting Machine, manufactured by B.C.S. India Private Limited Company from opposite party for total consideration of Rs.2,99,800/- including accessories.  It is also not disputed that due to technical defects, the OPs refunded the price of tractor i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/-  on 16.03.2018 instead of Rs.2,99,800/-.  The plea of the complainant was that he was entitled for Rs.59,800/- alongwith interest, is denied because the complaint was hopelessly time barred. Perusal of the file shows that cause of action had arisen to the complainant either on 22.03.2017 and 16.03.2018 (when OP issued cheque of Rs.2,40,000/- in favour of the complainant), but, the complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2022 i.e. after more than four years. The complainant purchased the tractor in the year 2017 and that is why The Consumer Protection Act,1986 would apply in this case. The complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a period of two years has been prescribed for filing complaint from the date of cause of action, which in the instant case is 22.03.2017 and 16.03.2018. Complainant did not submit any application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited as State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, JT 2009(4) SC 191, wherein it has been held that:-

“8.     It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is preemptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. 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 the complaint 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 and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

          In a recent judgment cited as V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena Fernandes 2011 CTJ 1 (SUPREME COURT) (CP) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-

“Section 24A (1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under Section 24A(1). If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24A (2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same.”         

The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to case law State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (Supra)and V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Versus Anita Sena Fernandes (Supra). The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The State Consumer Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

8.  

9.      A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

10.    File be consigned to record room.

 

05thDecember, 2024         Manjula                     S.P.Sood                  T.P.S.Mann,

                                                Member                     Judicial Member     President

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)