NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1326/2013

DINESH BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. VINOD KUMAR

06 May 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1326 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 09/01/2013 in Appeal No. 1309/2012 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. DINESH BANSAL
S/O SHRI SANSARI LAL BANSAL, R/O 62-C BRS NAGAR
LUDHIANA
PUNJAB
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, RANJIT TOWER (FIRST FLOOR) PAKHOWAL ROAD,
LUDHIANA
PUNJAB
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. VINOD KUMAR
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 06 May 2013
ORDER

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Dinesh Bansal, the complainant purchased a truck in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., the opposite party.  He paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- in advance and obtained the possession of truck on 31.3.2007.   According to the complainant,  the  opposite  party  had   assured   him   that  all  the documents of truck would be handed over to him within a week so that he may ply the same on road.  However, those documents were not handed over till the filing of the complaint before the fora and till the filing of the revision petition before this Commission.  The complainant, however, continued to pay EMIs to the opposite party/respondent.  However, no evidence was produced in this respect.  Learned counsel for the petitioner orally submits that the last EMI was given in Febraury, 2008.  Thereafter, he wrote several letters to the opposite party/respondent to deliver the documents but it did not ring the bell.  A civil suit for mandatory injunction was also filed against the opposite party which still is pending.

2.      The complaint was filed before the District Forum on 23.5.2012 i.e. much after the lapse of 4 to 5 years.  Both the fora below have dismissed the complaint on the ground of being time barred.  There was a lapse of 5 years.  The State Commission also placed reliance on the celebrated authority of State Bank of India vs. B. S. Agricultural Industires (I) 2009 CTJ 481 (SC).  Had the petitioner shown to us that he was paying EMIs within two years before filing of the   complaint,  this   complaint   would  have  been  entertainable.   

Another burning question is whether the petitioner is a defaulter.  The petitioner himself appended with the petition notice dated 14.4.2008 under the caption “First notice for default in payment of installments by hirer/borrower for vehicle No. 9807 under agreement No. STFC/LDH/SI-3124”.  However, there lies no rub in filing a civil suit alongwith consumer proceedings.  Since the case is barred by time, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.

          The revision petition is dismissed.

 

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.